I agree with your point, but you have a bit of a chicken and egg scenario with it. The power users don't like it, and the power users are the ones who would introduce it to the non power users. Where does it get any momentum?
Honestly, when was the last time you got a blue screen of death? Honestly?
About two weeks ago. It was centered around a bug in the handoff between the onboard Intel and Nvidia graphics cards, the drivers didn't handle the handoff between IGP and external (to the processor, not to the laptop) graphics correctly. Not Microsoft's fault, but then again, probably 50-75% of BSoDs back in "the day" were caused by bad drivers or hardware.
A settings tweak resolved the problem. That said, obviously the BSoD is still alive and well. FWIW, I've kernel panic'd linux and OSX at least as often as I've killed Windows 7 in the past few years of use too. They all seem about equally stable in a desktop environment. Servers, however are a different game. I don't think I've crashed a configured Linux server I manage in... years.
I think some of the malcontent in this country should start pushing a party like this in the media. The only concern is, here in the USA, they might actually WIN the election.
Those items aren't what add the weight though. In fact, I have a sports car with VERY good brakes and suspension, and it weighs less then 2900 lbs wet. That's 700-1000 lbs less than a brand new Mustang. It's also 25 years old and doesn't have 10 air bags and all the reinforcements and safety additions that the Mustang has.
It's also worth noting that with the modern V8 engine I installed in the car, I can get >30 mpg on the highway (and 23-24 city) all while having >500 HP for the times I feel like being entertained.
Now, are these safety improvements in modern vehicles worthwhile? I'd argue yes, they are. Human life is valuable, whether you look at it from the empathetic side or merely the cost to treat/dispose of/replace a human.
Incredibly accurate, I recently left a company that functioned exactly like that. Interestingly, in the 6 years I worked there, I watched their IS department go from the best in town to barely limping along. With my departure, only a single senior engineer remains, and he is looking for a way out as well.
A driver in the lane next to you suddenly swerves into your lane. The only option is an evasive maneuver.
A driver travelling the opposite direction suddenly comes toward you head on. The only option is an evasive maneuver.
A semi truck ahead of you on the motorway loses a tire retread. The only option is an evasive maneuver.
A vehicle in front of you loses a large piece of glass which flies toward your vehicle (I had this happen last year). The only option was evasive maneuvers.
Your comment seems to assume that all other drivers will act in proper, controlled ways, and that equipment failure is impossible. Both of those are incredibly incorrect.
Can you explain to me how a camera is different than a cop's eyes in a way that is meaningful in this discussion?
Easy. There are insufficient police officers to tail every person at all times. Would you be alright with a cop following you every time you leave the house, everywhere you go until you arrive at a destination? That is the key difference with "everywhere surveillance". Combine this with the fact that ever increasing laws ever increase the odds that you have broken SOME law SOMEWHERE along the way, means that nearly everyone is a criminal. This doesn't mean everyone goes to jail, just that everyone must live in fear of government.
FWIW, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I'm not particularly concerned with cameras and monitoring (even drones and such) at the moment, but I recognize that long term, it's a huge net loss to freedom and it will certainly be abused. As technology improves, the abuse will worsen. The only way it does not is if police and government avoid corruption, and we all know that is not going to happen.
But electric vehicles weigh less (no heavy engine and transmission) and break down less (they're a lot less complex) so that's less wear on the roads and less replacement parts shipped, etc.
I was with you until this point. Electric motors that run cars are not nearly as light as you might think, drivetrain coupling systems are still required (think transmission for an electric car), and BATTERIES which are not light. On the same note, I can lift the engine in/out of a Honda Civic with the help of a friend, and carry it around a shop myself.
Electric vehicles can possibly be brought close to parity with ICE powered vehicles, but they are not there yet. Their complexity isn't really less either, it's just changed from mechanical complexity to electromechanical complexity.
As I said, your other points are very good, but I had to take issue with this one. FWIW, IAARF (I Am A Racecar Fabricator).
FWIW, my company has electric car parking with little credit card swipes that charge you for the energy. We're a healthcare system in the Midwest, not a Silicon Valley group also.
I'm lost. Do the other 99% of local people not like profits?
I follow your sentiment and dislike the results of this when I have to deal with a call center, but is the tired rhetoric really proving anything here?
Do you mean the Science Channel? I've never seen How It's Made on the syphilis channel (SyFy). The Science Channel has a few decent shows. Through the Wormhole isn't bad, but anything with Morgan Freeman narrating is at least nice to listen to.
Discovery OCCASIONALLY has good stuff, but unfortunately not like they used to. Much like the history channel. Other than Modern Marvels, there is much history related on there (though it is occasionally interesting to see the shit people find in their attic on Pawn Stars, sorta like Antiques Roadshow).
I was very unhappy at my old job (with management). I was polite in my exit interview, but certainly did not give them any praise, including the people conducting the interview. I had no concern about the repercussions, simply because the company I was moving from was hated in the industry, and the company I was moving to had a long history of disagreement with them.
In this case, the management of the company I was leaving telling the new company that I was "not a team player" and all the other drivel serves me better than a glowing review. Of course, it's worth noting that I had been a liaison to the new company prior to moving there, so they already knew I was a hard worker and competent.
Maybe you are confused as to the exact meaning of "likelihood of confusion".
The concept behind it is that the design could be confused for endorsement of the book by Jack Daniels, which is not the case.
Are you under the impression that you could start printing t-shirts with the Jack Daniels logo (or a subtle variation) and resell those with impunity due to the fact that no one will think that a t-shirt is a bottle of whiskey?
That was the point I was trying to make. I generally like my country (and by country, I mean the people I share it with) but I strongly disagree with the direction and decisions made by our government (which creates a "Catch 22" since it is a representation of its people).
This whole theory (trolling the terrorist) seems like many others. A novel intention, unlikely to create the results they expect.
Why is it OK for a baseball player with 20/20 vision to have LASIK surgery to improve his eyesight to above normal so he can hit more fast balls and make more home runs but not OK for him to take steroids to make his strength above normal to hit more home runs? I just don't see the difference.
That is an interesting question, though glasses/contacts can also provide the same benefit. There are also certainly many people well above the average, for example I have vision that is substantially better than 20/20 (I can hit a fastball well too, never considered that may be why. Too bad I still throw like a girl).
The real question (and what I assume you are alluding to) is that unless you say "you can be "x" strong and "x" fast and no faster" how do you determine fair. I guess the simple answer is you make a set of rules and stick to them, which is what we've done so far. Fair? Certainly not. As good as we can do for now? Perhaps.
You may be right, but if you look at it from the angle that we are outspending our resources dramatically, it would certainly appear that this is less critical than many parts of infrastructure that MUST be paid for. Medicare, social security, infrastructure, etc. When you have no money, anything that is not directly related to survival is, by definition, luxury.
I am far simplifying a complex concept for the purpose of quick discussion, and I realize that. There is more to this from every angle, I'm just putting out a counterpoint. I do believe that education is absolutely critical to this country and needs improvement, badly. My concern is the fact that we spend more money year over year for falling quality, and this program seems like another example of throwing money we don't really have to spend, into a hole.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with your point, but you have a bit of a chicken and egg scenario with it. The power users don't like it, and the power users are the ones who would introduce it to the non power users. Where does it get any momentum?
Nah, they have the Cherenkov radiation effect. Should still be blue.
Honestly, when was the last time you got a blue screen of death? Honestly?
About two weeks ago. It was centered around a bug in the handoff between the onboard Intel and Nvidia graphics cards, the drivers didn't handle the handoff between IGP and external (to the processor, not to the laptop) graphics correctly. Not Microsoft's fault, but then again, probably 50-75% of BSoDs back in "the day" were caused by bad drivers or hardware.
A settings tweak resolved the problem. That said, obviously the BSoD is still alive and well. FWIW, I've kernel panic'd linux and OSX at least as often as I've killed Windows 7 in the past few years of use too. They all seem about equally stable in a desktop environment. Servers, however are a different game. I don't think I've crashed a configured Linux server I manage in... years.
That is a fantastic idea.
I think some of the malcontent in this country should start pushing a party like this in the media. The only concern is, here in the USA, they might actually WIN the election.
Those items aren't what add the weight though. In fact, I have a sports car with VERY good brakes and suspension, and it weighs less then 2900 lbs wet. That's 700-1000 lbs less than a brand new Mustang. It's also 25 years old and doesn't have 10 air bags and all the reinforcements and safety additions that the Mustang has.
It's also worth noting that with the modern V8 engine I installed in the car, I can get >30 mpg on the highway (and 23-24 city) all while having >500 HP for the times I feel like being entertained.
Now, are these safety improvements in modern vehicles worthwhile? I'd argue yes, they are. Human life is valuable, whether you look at it from the empathetic side or merely the cost to treat/dispose of/replace a human.
Campaign promises? No.
Campaign funding? Oh my yes.
Incredibly accurate, I recently left a company that functioned exactly like that. Interestingly, in the 6 years I worked there, I watched their IS department go from the best in town to barely limping along. With my departure, only a single senior engineer remains, and he is looking for a way out as well.
They were family owned as well.
A driver in the lane next to you suddenly swerves into your lane. The only option is an evasive maneuver.
A driver travelling the opposite direction suddenly comes toward you head on. The only option is an evasive maneuver.
A semi truck ahead of you on the motorway loses a tire retread. The only option is an evasive maneuver.
A vehicle in front of you loses a large piece of glass which flies toward your vehicle (I had this happen last year). The only option was evasive maneuvers.
Your comment seems to assume that all other drivers will act in proper, controlled ways, and that equipment failure is impossible. Both of those are incredibly incorrect.
Can you explain to me how a camera is different than a cop's eyes in a way that is meaningful in this discussion?
Easy. There are insufficient police officers to tail every person at all times. Would you be alright with a cop following you every time you leave the house, everywhere you go until you arrive at a destination? That is the key difference with "everywhere surveillance". Combine this with the fact that ever increasing laws ever increase the odds that you have broken SOME law SOMEWHERE along the way, means that nearly everyone is a criminal. This doesn't mean everyone goes to jail, just that everyone must live in fear of government.
FWIW, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I'm not particularly concerned with cameras and monitoring (even drones and such) at the moment, but I recognize that long term, it's a huge net loss to freedom and it will certainly be abused. As technology improves, the abuse will worsen. The only way it does not is if police and government avoid corruption, and we all know that is not going to happen.
Virtua Tennis was a lot of fun. Ace Combat also. Now the port of Quake 3 Arena... THAT was terrible.
But electric vehicles weigh less (no heavy engine and transmission) and break down less (they're a lot less complex) so that's less wear on the roads and less replacement parts shipped, etc.
I was with you until this point. Electric motors that run cars are not nearly as light as you might think, drivetrain coupling systems are still required (think transmission for an electric car), and BATTERIES which are not light. On the same note, I can lift the engine in/out of a Honda Civic with the help of a friend, and carry it around a shop myself.
Electric vehicles can possibly be brought close to parity with ICE powered vehicles, but they are not there yet. Their complexity isn't really less either, it's just changed from mechanical complexity to electromechanical complexity.
As I said, your other points are very good, but I had to take issue with this one. FWIW, IAARF (I Am A Racecar Fabricator).
FWIW, my company has electric car parking with little credit card swipes that charge you for the energy. We're a healthcare system in the Midwest, not a Silicon Valley group also.
They "played" as "the bad guys" obviously.
I'm lost. Do the other 99% of local people not like profits?
I follow your sentiment and dislike the results of this when I have to deal with a call center, but is the tired rhetoric really proving anything here?
Wait, I am a little confused and not only did I RTFA, but I did a Google search for more information.
Maybe Samsung disabled the ability to find useful results on the topic in Google.
Do you mean the Science Channel? I've never seen How It's Made on the syphilis channel (SyFy). The Science Channel has a few decent shows. Through the Wormhole isn't bad, but anything with Morgan Freeman narrating is at least nice to listen to.
Discovery OCCASIONALLY has good stuff, but unfortunately not like they used to. Much like the history channel. Other than Modern Marvels, there is much history related on there (though it is occasionally interesting to see the shit people find in their attic on Pawn Stars, sorta like Antiques Roadshow).
I was very unhappy at my old job (with management). I was polite in my exit interview, but certainly did not give them any praise, including the people conducting the interview. I had no concern about the repercussions, simply because the company I was moving from was hated in the industry, and the company I was moving to had a long history of disagreement with them.
In this case, the management of the company I was leaving telling the new company that I was "not a team player" and all the other drivel serves me better than a glowing review. Of course, it's worth noting that I had been a liaison to the new company prior to moving there, so they already knew I was a hard worker and competent.
Maybe you are confused as to the exact meaning of "likelihood of confusion".
The concept behind it is that the design could be confused for endorsement of the book by Jack Daniels, which is not the case.
Are you under the impression that you could start printing t-shirts with the Jack Daniels logo (or a subtle variation) and resell those with impunity due to the fact that no one will think that a t-shirt is a bottle of whiskey?
That was the point I was trying to make. I generally like my country (and by country, I mean the people I share it with) but I strongly disagree with the direction and decisions made by our government (which creates a "Catch 22" since it is a representation of its people).
This whole theory (trolling the terrorist) seems like many others. A novel intention, unlikely to create the results they expect.
Holy hell, I killed a ton of people before I was born!
I should look into becoming a contract killer apparently.
Why is it OK for a baseball player with 20/20 vision to have LASIK surgery to improve his eyesight to above normal so he can hit more fast balls and make more home runs but not OK for him to take steroids to make his strength above normal to hit more home runs? I just don't see the difference.
That is an interesting question, though glasses/contacts can also provide the same benefit. There are also certainly many people well above the average, for example I have vision that is substantially better than 20/20 (I can hit a fastball well too, never considered that may be why. Too bad I still throw like a girl).
The real question (and what I assume you are alluding to) is that unless you say "you can be "x" strong and "x" fast and no faster" how do you determine fair. I guess the simple answer is you make a set of rules and stick to them, which is what we've done so far. Fair? Certainly not. As good as we can do for now? Perhaps.
So just a substantial heatsink then?
Flamebate seems like a good way to burn one's crotch.
Just curious, as an American...
How many people have I murdered? Lives ruined?
And if I'm profiting, my check must be lost in the mail.
You may be right, but if you look at it from the angle that we are outspending our resources dramatically, it would certainly appear that this is less critical than many parts of infrastructure that MUST be paid for. Medicare, social security, infrastructure, etc. When you have no money, anything that is not directly related to survival is, by definition, luxury.
I am far simplifying a complex concept for the purpose of quick discussion, and I realize that. There is more to this from every angle, I'm just putting out a counterpoint. I do believe that education is absolutely critical to this country and needs improvement, badly. My concern is the fact that we spend more money year over year for falling quality, and this program seems like another example of throwing money we don't really have to spend, into a hole.