While the 14th century usage may have meant something else, it's certainly well known that the entire planet Earth does in fact quake during an earthquake. Why do you think remote sensors can detect earthquakes half way around the planet? Definitions of words change over a couple of years, let alone several centuries. In this case, I'd say the term "earthquake" as in the planet is more accurate than the original definition. But it becomes problematic when you're talking about a quake on another celestial body.
I also believe the "earth", as in dirt, that was referred to in the 14th century was generally referring to cultivable topsoil. You're not going to find much of that on the moon, mars, or a star.
For some reason, earthquakes on Mars are now called Marsquakes?
Well, they certainly aren't earthquakes. Perhaps they should simply be called "quakes". But earthquake is definitely not correct.
If you have to make up a word and make it a proper noun for a really fundamental effect on a science and technology news website, something is seriously wrong.
I'd say marsquake is pretty accurate. Certainly more so than earthquake. "Earthquake" is simply two words put together to describe the ground on the earth shaking. If it occurs on Mars, then to say the Earth is quaking would be very inaccurate.
New words are made up all of the time and the meaning of some words change over time as well. If you don't like it, speak Latin. It's a dead language it isn't supposed to evolve.
Well damn. I still have my stereo receiver from the late 1960's It has a metal badge on the front proudly declaring it is "Solid State". I'm pretty sure I still have a transistor radio somewhere from that time period that is also "solid state" Unfortunately my TV with a solid state badge has been gone for some time now.
BTW, your idea will obviously fail. It has no AI/deep learning/machine learning and no cloud.
"We don't know who struck first, us or them, but we know that it was us that scorched the sky. At the time, they were dependent on solar power and it was believed that they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the sun."
While I don't think this idea is quite as extreme as the Matrix. I do wonder what the impact would be on solar power globally. Since the wind currents could also be affected, what issues could it cause for current wind power plant locations too?
I personally get at least two calls a day on my land line from these assholes as it is, and I was getting almost five a day during this past election season. If it wasn't for the fact I can't get any cellular service where I live I would shut the line off entirely.
Yeah, that really doesn't matter. I get 2 or more of them on my mobile everyday too. My favorite are the ones that inform me that my social security number has been canceled.
Waiting for the annual Cyber Force versus Space Force football games to start.
That should be pretty funny actually. On the Cyber force team we'll have a bunch of hot pocket eating guys who get winded walking to the soda machine. The Space force team will be struggling like hell once they get out of zero G. I'm guessing the score of most games will be 0-0. The winning team will be the one with the least number of cardiac incidents during the game.
These guys did it in 36 seconds. Granted, network hacks and elegant solutions need to be addressed. But what's the point if you cant keep a couple of guys with a pickup truck and a chain from driving off with it. It always reminds me of this xkcd.
No, just strikes me as kinda funny...and also my usual observation that the US doesn't use the metric system for anything in most citizens' real daily lives.
That no one really uses it here.
I know. I was just saying the same thing the other day when I picked up a 2 liter of soda and a bottle of 500mg aspirin at the store. While I was out, my daughter asked me to pick up a new set of headphones with a 3.5mm jack. Since I was at the store I picked up some new LED bulbs to lower my monthly kilowatt usage at home. That reminded me that I needed to order some new 80 and 120mm case fans for my desktop too. I'll probably add 16 more GB of RAM while I'm at it. On the way home some idiot in a 5.0 liter Ford Mustang cut in front of me and got out of his car carrying a baseball bat. Fortunately when he saw my Glock 9mm, he got back in his car and left 2 seconds later. I don't know how he knew I had my wife's 3 carat emerald ring in the car.
And how many have been successful that didn't have a population that wasn't ethnically homogeneous?
Just take a look at the Scandinavia countries.
OK. And? Those are not socialist countries. They are capitalist countries with high taxes and large government run entitlements programs. In fact, I don't think they even have a legal minimum wage in most, if not all of the Scandinavian countries.
I've heard this argument before and its 100% weapons grade BS.
I like that. I'm going to steal that and use it myself.
You are right that nobody can be an expert in anything. But you are forgetting about Dunning-Kruger [nih.gov] where ability confers the ability to judge other's ability. How on earth could this computer illiterate possibly hope to be able to tell good cybersecurity from something that couldn't stop your average 15 yro?
In most cases they don't need to sit down and ask them minute details. As long as they have useful experience and can show results, then someone else can ask the detailed questions about their knowledge. If someone applies for the job and has Sony network security on their CV, they probably aren't going to be what their looking for.
I don't know what your background is, but if it's not in the management/executive level, then you very well may want to look in the mirror regarding Dunning-Kruger.
This is why the myth of a pure manager needs to die. Skill in management itself is maybe 30% of the job in management. The strategy, talent assessment, and organization is far more important and those things require knowledge of what your team will be doing. That's why nobody believes this guy will be at all good at this job. The excuses we offer as to why this might not be so bad are more a psychological self-preservation technique than anything.
This really depends on the person and the role. On top of that, this is a government position, which makes it even harder to judge. I've worked for CEO's who were absolutely brilliant in their field, but were complete disasters as a CEO. And some of the best ones that I've worked for couldn't use the software that the company made to save their life. Obviously there is quite the range in between too. I don't know anything about this guy, so I can't say for certain one way of the other. Hell, just look at any politician. We vote them in office because they say things we want to hear and rarely know anything about the subject matter in hearings like this.
While I agree that it's odd, I'm not sure that it really matters. As long as he knows how to put qualified people in key positions, then that's all that really matters. How many of his predecessors had to actually code or do anything hands on while in that position? If they could, would it be a smart use of their time? And just how effective would they have been?
Eisenhower was criticized in his day for delegating and not being hands on enough. But he was smart enough to put the right people in the right positions. History certainly judged him more favorably than his critics at the time.
No, they mean a thousand million... is it USD or GBP? Well, what ever. You can't call it a billion, that sounds like a lot of money for some RC toys. The tax payers are much happier when you are only spending a thousand million dollars. They understand that millions isn't all that much when it comes to military spending.
Reading over you comment, do you have a distrust in the public?
Yes, I very much distrust the public. I can reason with a person. The public, not so much.
What if the vast majority of the public wants hateful things gone?
And there's a major issue. What's hateful to me may not be to you. I don't have the right to tell you what to say, nor to I want it.
Additionally, if the vast majority want it gone, then who is indeed in power here? I'm not saying you're wrong, but you are hitting on an existential problem with your own argument here.
I don't care what the vast majority want. As long as no one is being harmed by someone else's speech, then they should be allowed to say what they want. If someone's inciting violence against someone, of course it should be stopped.
The reason it is scary is because you aren't the one in power. If you were indeed in power, well we all know what we'd be doing, regardless of what anyone else thought. We'd be censoring censorship.
First of all, I have no desire to be in power. What I want is for people to be able to talk without worry of violating the law regardless of who's in power. It's easy to say your are for free speech when the majority agree with your views.
Just because we cannot objectively define something, does not mean it is a worthless goal to pursue.
That sounds great in theory. But when you try to outlaw something that the definition of can be readily changed, it's not only worthless, but dangerous.
And the thing is you're missing the entire point of being a human being. We're going to be wrong and over time we correct. And then one day everything we knew will be corrected because we were wrong, and then corrected again for the exact same reason of us being wrong, and again, and again, and again...until the very end of time. You're asking to stop a fight that by its very definition has no end.
Obviously some things are impossible to define and science and even mathematics change over time. But to claim that just saying something should be a violation of civil law is also something that we should be able to outgrow.
Except when the opinion is held by the majority. Kind of hard to move past the opinion of let's return to enslaving black people if say for example, you're black. Now, wonderfully, that opinion isn't held by the majority, but once upon a not too distant time ago, it was. But this isn't me tossing some red herring trying to bring up the race card, it's just me pointing out, not everything can just be a simple ignore option. You kind of touch on that with...
So you equate free speech with slavery? Seriously? No shit owning someone is a bad fucking idea. This is part of my point. Just because an idea is held by the majority, does not make it right. Just because saying certain things is thought of as bad by the majority, doesn't make it right.
No one is suggesting not allowing an academic debate about the topic, but you're jumping to that conclusion. And that's where the folly in your rationale of "subjective ought not be worthwhile" breaks down.
I don't care if it's academic debate, or how the person actually feels. Personally if someone is racist or sexist, or what ever toward me, I'd prefer for them to be able to tell me without fear of being arrested.
Here ask yourself. Why? Do you not trust someone to be able to censor in moderation? To know when a line has been crossed? That your fellow citizens will rise up when such a massive load of injustice has been carried out?
No, I don't trust people to moderate their censorship. I'm not gay, nor do I particularly care about the LGBTQRS lifestyle. But I don't feel anyone should be persecuted for it either. 30+ years ago I stood up for people I met that were a part of tha
aimed at establishing regulations for the internet, to fight such online threats as cyber attacks, hate speech and online censorship"
Anybody else see a problem with that statement?
You mean besides how you stop both hate speech and online censorship?
The internet should not be regulated? I agree that it shouldn't. If you are offended by something, then don't view it.
Fighting online attacks sounds great, but I don't' see how that's even a possibility. Hell, the US can't seem to stop this, I'm not sure how this could be done without a hell of a lot more oversight, to the point of neutering the internet as we know it.
There's no such thing as hate speech? Granted, there are hateful things that people say to each other, but there is no way to objectively define hate speech. Which is one of the issues I have with the term. What's considered acceptable speech today may not be in the very near future. How many things were acceptable 10, 50, or 100 year ago that would fall under current hate speech laws? It's a nebulous term and the thought of laws for such a thing being defined by who's in power is scary as hell.
I'm not a fan of any kind of censorship. Again, this falls back to who is in power and what they deem acceptable. If I find something offensive, I try to make my case, move past it or ignore it. Of course you can make arguments for not allowing people to get an abhorrent point of view out in the public. But if no one is even allowed to discuss these things, then there is absolutely no chance of trying to convince them of a different point of view. It's even worse if censorship gets used by those in power to suppress a point of view that they don't like, even if it is what the majority of a nation believes is correct.
Excellent idea. Because any gun that you could mount on a consumer grade drone would wouldn't be powerful enough to be more than a minor annoyance for an adult brown bear. And any gun that would be powerful enough would be too heavy and large to get the drone off of the ground.
If you ever got out of your mom's basement you'd know that you don't fuck with a bear, and that goes doubly so for a female that has cubs. Other than in areas where there are tigers and polar bear, there is nothing that is a threat to them, besides well armed humans. Most handguns don't have enough power to get to their organs, and their skull is thick enough that they won't penetrate that either. Shooting a bear with a handgun will more often than not, end up pissing off the bear and get you killed.
All of them are charging as if they were a full cable replacement instead of a single cable channel.
Netflix: $13.99/month for 4 concurrent devices in HD or $10.99 for 2 Amazon Prime: $99/Year ($8.25/ month) Hulu: $11.99/month with no/limited commercials HBO GO: $15/ month CBS AA: $5.99/month
I'm sure there are others, but all of those combined work out to $55.22 per month. I just checked to see what Comcast prices were. Their Digital Starter (w/ contract) is $59.99/ month before rental box and other fees and taxes. And that's for the first year. I don't know what the prices go up to after that.
You can argue that you also need to pay for an internet connection for the streaming services, but it's likely that you are going to have that regardless. Amazon Prime also gets you faster shipping, so there's that too.
I have the 2 device Netflix plan, Prime and Hulu. I pay $31.23 per month. When I canceled my Direct TV service several years ago, It was around $140 per month. It sucks that the market is getting more fractured, but I still prefer it to cable/satellite.
If the Pavillon de Breteuil burned down tomorrow and the kilogram in its vaults melted, we would have no reference left for the world's metric weights system.
It's been a while since I read about this, but I thought there were backup reference weights in London and at NIST. Even so, I always thought this particular metric unit seemed like a bad idea because of all of the issues it entails.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Merriam-Webster has an entry for moonquake. Oxford lists marsquake. The Free Dictionary has sunquake. Dictionary.com lists starquake.
While the 14th century usage may have meant something else, it's certainly well known that the entire planet Earth does in fact quake during an earthquake. Why do you think remote sensors can detect earthquakes half way around the planet? Definitions of words change over a couple of years, let alone several centuries. In this case, I'd say the term "earthquake" as in the planet is more accurate than the original definition. But it becomes problematic when you're talking about a quake on another celestial body.
I also believe the "earth", as in dirt, that was referred to in the 14th century was generally referring to cultivable topsoil. You're not going to find much of that on the moon, mars, or a star.
well let's follow this to the logical conclusion: "Uranusquake" ... that won't be abused at all.
I don't think we need to worry about that on any of the gas giants.
Like I said in my previous post, they should simply call them quakes on any other planet/moon and be done with it.
We call earthquakes earthquakes.
Yes, because they occur on the Earth.
For some reason, earthquakes on Mars are now called Marsquakes?
Well, they certainly aren't earthquakes. Perhaps they should simply be called "quakes". But earthquake is definitely not correct.
If you have to make up a word and make it a proper noun for a really fundamental effect on a science and technology news website, something is seriously wrong.
I'd say marsquake is pretty accurate. Certainly more so than earthquake. "Earthquake" is simply two words put together to describe the ground on the earth shaking. If it occurs on Mars, then to say the Earth is quaking would be very inaccurate.
New words are made up all of the time and the meaning of some words change over time as well. If you don't like it, speak Latin. It's a dead language it isn't supposed to evolve.
Maybe the car should have a built-in taser.Â
People have been known to lose bowel and/or bladder control after being tased. Do you really want to sit in the drivers seat after that?
I'd go with:
Solid State
Well damn. I still have my stereo receiver from the late 1960's It has a metal badge on the front proudly declaring it is "Solid State". I'm pretty sure I still have a transistor radio somewhere from that time period that is also "solid state" Unfortunately my TV with a solid state badge has been gone for some time now.
BTW, your idea will obviously fail. It has no AI/deep learning/machine learning and no cloud.
Lie first, claim you remember it somewhere, lie again. Then change the topic.
When people show the proof of your lies, blame that person and try to claim they are a liar instead.
Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter accusations
Found the model M abuser
FTFY
Found the floor abuser
FTFY
"We don't know who struck first, us or them, but we know that it was us that scorched the sky. At the time, they were dependent on solar power and it was believed that they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the sun."
While I don't think this idea is quite as extreme as the Matrix. I do wonder what the impact would be on solar power globally. Since the wind currents could also be affected, what issues could it cause for current wind power plant locations too?
Low expectations.
I expect a keyboard to break the floor when I drop it, not the other way around.
Found the model M user.
I personally get at least two calls a day on my land line from these assholes as it is, and I was getting almost five a day during this past election season. If it wasn't for the fact I can't get any cellular service where I live I would shut the line off entirely.
Yeah, that really doesn't matter. I get 2 or more of them on my mobile everyday too. My favorite are the ones that inform me that my social security number has been canceled.
Waiting for the annual Cyber Force versus Space Force football games to start.
That should be pretty funny actually. On the Cyber force team we'll have a bunch of hot pocket eating guys who get winded walking to the soda machine. The Space force team will be struggling like hell once they get out of zero G. I'm guessing the score of most games will be 0-0. The winning team will be the one with the least number of cardiac incidents during the game.
This should be a big hit in Chicago
These guys did it in 36 seconds. Granted, network hacks and elegant solutions need to be addressed. But what's the point if you cant keep a couple of guys with a pickup truck and a chain from driving off with it. It always reminds me of this xkcd.
No, just strikes me as kinda funny...and also my usual observation that the US doesn't use the metric system for anything in most citizens' real daily lives.
That no one really uses it here.
I know. I was just saying the same thing the other day when I picked up a 2 liter of soda and a bottle of 500mg aspirin at the store. While I was out, my daughter asked me to pick up a new set of headphones with a 3.5mm jack. Since I was at the store I picked up some new LED bulbs to lower my monthly kilowatt usage at home. That reminded me that I needed to order some new 80 and 120mm case fans for my desktop too. I'll probably add 16 more GB of RAM while I'm at it. On the way home some idiot in a 5.0 liter Ford Mustang cut in front of me and got out of his car carrying a baseball bat. Fortunately when he saw my Glock 9mm, he got back in his car and left 2 seconds later. I don't know how he knew I had my wife's 3 carat emerald ring in the car.
Socialism has some successes.
And how many have been successful that didn't have a population that wasn't ethnically homogeneous?
Just take a look at the Scandinavia countries.
OK. And? Those are not socialist countries. They are capitalist countries with high taxes and large government run entitlements programs. In fact, I don't think they even have a legal minimum wage in most, if not all of the Scandinavian countries.
I've heard this argument before and its 100% weapons grade BS.
I like that. I'm going to steal that and use it myself.
You are right that nobody can be an expert in anything. But you are forgetting about Dunning-Kruger [nih.gov] where ability confers the ability to judge other's ability. How on earth could this computer illiterate possibly hope to be able to tell good cybersecurity from something that couldn't stop your average 15 yro?
In most cases they don't need to sit down and ask them minute details. As long as they have useful experience and can show results, then someone else can ask the detailed questions about their knowledge. If someone applies for the job and has Sony network security on their CV, they probably aren't going to be what their looking for.
I don't know what your background is, but if it's not in the management/executive level, then you very well may want to look in the mirror regarding Dunning-Kruger.
This is why the myth of a pure manager needs to die. Skill in management itself is maybe 30% of the job in management. The strategy, talent assessment, and organization is far more important and those things require knowledge of what your team will be doing. That's why nobody believes this guy will be at all good at this job. The excuses we offer as to why this might not be so bad are more a psychological self-preservation technique than anything.
This really depends on the person and the role. On top of that, this is a government position, which makes it even harder to judge. I've worked for CEO's who were absolutely brilliant in their field, but were complete disasters as a CEO. And some of the best ones that I've worked for couldn't use the software that the company made to save their life. Obviously there is quite the range in between too. I don't know anything about this guy, so I can't say for certain one way of the other. Hell, just look at any politician. We vote them in office because they say things we want to hear and rarely know anything about the subject matter in hearings like this.
While I agree that it's odd, I'm not sure that it really matters. As long as he knows how to put qualified people in key positions, then that's all that really matters. How many of his predecessors had to actually code or do anything hands on while in that position? If they could, would it be a smart use of their time? And just how effective would they have been?
Eisenhower was criticized in his day for delegating and not being hands on enough. But he was smart enough to put the right people in the right positions. History certainly judged him more favorably than his critics at the time.
a casual observation shows the dollar symbol being used.
That's what I saw in the summary and thought it was kinda weird.
Looks like the innovation here is in some weird new formatting for money.
Actually I thought the revelation was that the British armed forces were now using the USD to pay for things rather than the GBP.
You mean a billion dollar fund?
No, they mean a thousand million... is it USD or GBP? Well, what ever. You can't call it a billion, that sounds like a lot of money for some RC toys. The tax payers are much happier when you are only spending a thousand million dollars. They understand that millions isn't all that much when it comes to military spending.
Reading over you comment, do you have a distrust in the public?
Yes, I very much distrust the public. I can reason with a person. The public, not so much.
What if the vast majority of the public wants hateful things gone?
And there's a major issue. What's hateful to me may not be to you. I don't have the right to tell you what to say, nor to I want it.
Additionally, if the vast majority want it gone, then who is indeed in power here? I'm not saying you're wrong, but you are hitting on an existential problem with your own argument here.
I don't care what the vast majority want. As long as no one is being harmed by someone else's speech, then they should be allowed to say what they want. If someone's inciting violence against someone, of course it should be stopped.
The reason it is scary is because you aren't the one in power. If you were indeed in power, well we all know what we'd be doing, regardless of what anyone else thought. We'd be censoring censorship.
First of all, I have no desire to be in power. What I want is for people to be able to talk without worry of violating the law regardless of who's in power. It's easy to say your are for free speech when the majority agree with your views.
Just because we cannot objectively define something, does not mean it is a worthless goal to pursue.
That sounds great in theory. But when you try to outlaw something that the definition of can be readily changed, it's not only worthless, but dangerous.
And the thing is you're missing the entire point of being a human being. We're going to be wrong and over time we correct. And then one day everything we knew will be corrected because we were wrong, and then corrected again for the exact same reason of us being wrong, and again, and again, and again...until the very end of time. You're asking to stop a fight that by its very definition has no end.
Obviously some things are impossible to define and science and even mathematics change over time. But to claim that just saying something should be a violation of civil law is also something that we should be able to outgrow.
Except when the opinion is held by the majority. Kind of hard to move past the opinion of let's return to enslaving black people if say for example, you're black. Now, wonderfully, that opinion isn't held by the majority, but once upon a not too distant time ago, it was. But this isn't me tossing some red herring trying to bring up the race card, it's just me pointing out, not everything can just be a simple ignore option. You kind of touch on that with...
So you equate free speech with slavery? Seriously? No shit owning someone is a bad fucking idea. This is part of my point. Just because an idea is held by the majority, does not make it right. Just because saying certain things is thought of as bad by the majority, doesn't make it right.
No one is suggesting not allowing an academic debate about the topic, but you're jumping to that conclusion. And that's where the folly in your rationale of "subjective ought not be worthwhile" breaks down.
I don't care if it's academic debate, or how the person actually feels. Personally if someone is racist or sexist, or what ever toward me, I'd prefer for them to be able to tell me without fear of being arrested.
Here ask yourself. Why? Do you not trust someone to be able to censor in moderation? To know when a line has been crossed? That your fellow citizens will rise up when such a massive load of injustice has been carried out?
No, I don't trust people to moderate their censorship. I'm not gay, nor do I particularly care about the LGBTQRS lifestyle. But I don't feel anyone should be persecuted for it either. 30+ years ago I stood up for people I met that were a part of tha
aimed at establishing regulations for the internet, to fight such online threats as cyber attacks, hate speech and online censorship"
Anybody else see a problem with that statement?
You mean besides how you stop both hate speech and online censorship?
The internet should not be regulated? I agree that it shouldn't. If you are offended by something, then don't view it.
Fighting online attacks sounds great, but I don't' see how that's even a possibility. Hell, the US can't seem to stop this, I'm not sure how this could be done without a hell of a lot more oversight, to the point of neutering the internet as we know it.
There's no such thing as hate speech? Granted, there are hateful things that people say to each other, but there is no way to objectively define hate speech. Which is one of the issues I have with the term. What's considered acceptable speech today may not be in the very near future. How many things were acceptable 10, 50, or 100 year ago that would fall under current hate speech laws? It's a nebulous term and the thought of laws for such a thing being defined by who's in power is scary as hell.
I'm not a fan of any kind of censorship. Again, this falls back to who is in power and what they deem acceptable. If I find something offensive, I try to make my case, move past it or ignore it. Of course you can make arguments for not allowing people to get an abhorrent point of view out in the public. But if no one is even allowed to discuss these things, then there is absolutely no chance of trying to convince them of a different point of view. It's even worse if censorship gets used by those in power to suppress a point of view that they don't like, even if it is what the majority of a nation believes is correct.
Put a gun on that drone - shoot the bear
Excellent idea. Because any gun that you could mount on a consumer grade drone would wouldn't be powerful enough to be more than a minor annoyance for an adult brown bear. And any gun that would be powerful enough would be too heavy and large to get the drone off of the ground.
If you ever got out of your mom's basement you'd know that you don't fuck with a bear, and that goes doubly so for a female that has cubs. Other than in areas where there are tigers and polar bear, there is nothing that is a threat to them, besides well armed humans. Most handguns don't have enough power to get to their organs, and their skull is thick enough that they won't penetrate that either. Shooting a bear with a handgun will more often than not, end up pissing off the bear and get you killed.
All of them are charging as if they were a full cable replacement instead of a single cable channel.
Netflix: $13.99/month for 4 concurrent devices in HD or $10.99 for 2
Amazon Prime: $99/Year ($8.25/ month)
Hulu: $11.99/month with no/limited commercials
HBO GO: $15/ month
CBS AA: $5.99/month
I'm sure there are others, but all of those combined work out to $55.22 per month. I just checked to see what Comcast prices were. Their Digital Starter (w/ contract) is $59.99/ month before rental box and other fees and taxes. And that's for the first year. I don't know what the prices go up to after that.
You can argue that you also need to pay for an internet connection for the streaming services, but it's likely that you are going to have that regardless. Amazon Prime also gets you faster shipping, so there's that too.
I have the 2 device Netflix plan, Prime and Hulu. I pay $31.23 per month. When I canceled my Direct TV service several years ago, It was around $140 per month. It sucks that the market is getting more fractured, but I still prefer it to cable/satellite.
If the Pavillon de Breteuil burned down tomorrow and the kilogram in its vaults melted, we would have no reference left for the world's metric weights system.
It's been a while since I read about this, but I thought there were backup reference weights in London and at NIST. Even so, I always thought this particular metric unit seemed like a bad idea because of all of the issues it entails.