But let me be frank - this is so goddamned fscking ridiculously friggin stupid that only a true idiot would think it was remotely an intelligent idea. Memory is cheap, so what kind of retard would want to store their applications in the fail-inevitble cloud bubble?
So now we have the always secure cloud giving out our life history (check), the always avalable cloud not providing our applications when we need them. Because everytone is going to have all the internet bandwidth they need, when they need it. - right?
The cloud is going to seriously fuck over this country one of thees days. But somehow, it won't be the cloud's fault, because the cloud never fails - only we can fail the cloud.
However, as someone who only has the occasional need, or who wants to prototype a couple, then order 20 of them. I was working on a home automation project, perfect example, because once my design is fully prototyped, I want to send off and have a bunch of them made, because I need at least 2-3 for each room of the house.
I am not making those pcbs by hand, and I don't make pcbs by hand now, so, it really doesn't make sense for me to start.
For certain, the more boards you need, the more sense it makes to have a board house do them. The cost per board plummets.
I am usually only making one copy ever. Doing it on a perfboard (for hole mounted stuff) or etching my own PCB is much faster than ordering a PCB (and actually having the layout in a format that the company accepts) and waiting a few weeks for it to arrive.
I haven't found their one-off boards to be all that inexpensive either. And then there is rework.
We're makin' stuff!
And the answer to the submitter of the article is that yes, it makes no sense to hand make PC boards. Nor does it make sense to make things at all. Just be a good consumer and purchase things to keep the economy strong.
Meanwhile, I'll make my own at home. I don't care if it makes sense to him.
If you're prototyping, why in hell not use "hole-mounted stuff"? In the time it takes you to solder on two or three surface mount components, you can have the whole circuit breadboarded up and smoke flying.
You must be either the worst SM component worker or the best through hole worker in the world.
I've been working with Surface mount for several years now, and while different, I haven't seen that wild ratio of work speed you claim.
The main reason to shift to SMT is that there aren't all that many non SMT active components available any more.
Hows about you show us what percentage of people kill other people or deliberately get into positions where they're likely have to kill other people.
I've presented my thesis, and the data to back it up I might consider giving out some more if anyone else would step up to the plate and hand out something other than telling me I am wrong..
TL;DR version. No. Let's see your data first.
Let's limit this to one year in the US, to keep it manageable (and to keep it in an environment where most people don't think they need to kill others to be safe). Some people do like killing, but most don't.
My thesis is that humans are a violent species, and that they enjoy killing each other
If that was true, everyone would be out killing all the time, or at least trying.
So I guess the constant warfare we've been in is actually a game of bridge? We are out killing all the time.
What you are talking about is murder, a subset of killing. It is highly discouraged, because it is killing on of "ours". Killing one of "theirs, which is whoever the enemy is at any given moment, is an entirely different matter, indeed, the goal. The guy behind the "American Sniper" saga is a hero because he can line 'em up and drop 'em, no more trouble than harvesting a deer to feed the family.
Anyhow, if people wish to believe that one of our core activities is something we hate - they can. I fear they are merely fooling themselves. We have an innate genetically derived tendency toward violence. It almost certainly was a big help in surviving. It might very well prove our undoing, as our big brains allow us to kill more efficiently than our lizard brain can comprehend.
There's nothing wrong with my logic except that it contradicts your religion.
Allow me.. Evrything is not like everything else. The kid may or may not have been singled out because of ethnicity. But even if he was, it does not follow that every child that has run afoul of the isane zero tolerance/ Police in schools disaster has been singled out for their ethnicity.
I'll let you go now - The 700 Club is on pretty soon, and you don't want to miss it.
From what I have heard, there were two American planes that you never wanted to see as the enemy - The Tomcat and the Warthog. One's a beauty, and one's fugly.
Come now, the F-14 Tomcat isn't that ugly;)
Had me for a moment, there! Pretty well played, sir.
Most of those wars involved only a small number of Americans, and some of them really aren't wars. The US is a big place, with lots of people. Being constantly involved with little wars doesn't mean there's much fighting per capita.
And Vietnam was a police action, so it like - wasn't really a war - right? I'm throwing down the gauntlet. My thesis is that humans are a violent species, and that they enjoy killing each other. A lot of people say I am wrong. Not much else, just that I am wrong.
So can you do anything other than claim "Well, they were not big wars - so you are wrong? Reminds me of the old Galagher joke - "Be careful driving home from the show folks - it only counts if you get killed on a holiday!" If it wasnt a big war, those deaths don't count?
It's a simple request. I use evidence backed up with some psychology. Evidence is the constant warfare by both the US and the rest of the world. Evidence is the things we do to each other on a daily basis. Psychology is that people tend to not do what they do not like to do. Gauntlet. Data. Hand it over. Challenge accepted?
The Vietnam War was grossly mishandled. Thinking that body counts mean anything in a war like that was just a symptom of the greater dysfunction.
The dysfunction is that humans really enjoy killing each other.
I've presented my thesis here and in some other posts here, showing that the US has been in virtually constant war through the 20th century, and the 21st century - that isn't an anti-US thing, because they were just the ones I researched. I've given psychology, my consideration that it is a genetic trait toward violence, and hard data to back it up.
So instead of everyone just telling me I am wrong, how about some evidence to back up your claims I am wrong?
Well, by definition it isn't linux, since it runs a different kernel.
And yet how odd. I open up a terminal, and viola, almost everything is the same.
Your kernel distinction is interesting and true enough. but in everyday use, it's a Unixy OS, and whether or not my mentor is a "fucking tool " as the AC so eloquently put it, once he noted that fact to me, I suddenly became a whole lot more capable in Linux, because I applied OSX knowledge to it.
As for his work, he uses a Macbook Pro for all his development work on emergency communication programs, a complete cross platform suite for Linux, OSX, and Windows. Not too bad for that AC's "fucking tool".
If you like, I can give you his contact info so you can tell him how wrong he is.
Plus you seem to be arguing that humans don't enjoy killing each other? It's what we do best.
Uh, no, it's not. I don't believe there's any other predator that can live with so little violence with the kind of population densities humans manage in our cities. That's why we took over the planet.
Did you see my list of American wars of the 20th century?
The fact that we had daily body counts in Vietnam kinda argues against that.
No, that just shows that journalists needed something to talk about. Regularly reported body counts weren't driven by the military, they were ordered by politicians pandering to the media.
Hard to argue when you use the same points I would use to prove my point. Your thesis is that Americans didn't want those body counts, and they were forced upon us?
I was pretty young at the time, but a lot of people I talked to at the time could recite the body counts at will, and took them as proof we were "putting it to those "gooks"". Sorry, some of the folks down at the legion talked that way.
Hell, we even baited the VC by taking an area killing off a whole bunch, then moving off to let them come back in, then moving in again. It wasn't a war to reclaim land - that could have been over in a few months. It was a war to kill people, nothing more, nothing less.
The US emerged from WW2 in rather good shape. But if you are going to take the position that if one person is harmed, everyone loses. That's a personal take on a large scale event.
Nonetheless, I do ultimately agree with Regis' premise that Mars should not be the goal simply because Mars is a dead-end. I mean, what are you going to do once you get there that can't be done here on Earth?
Of what use is a newborn baby? Those little bastards take up a lot of resources and time, and all they give you in return is a lot of shit.
When we ask these questions, we do start on a slippery slope. Mankind survived for a long long time without any of the stuff that space travel and rocketry brought us. A GPS is nice and all, but if they disappeared tomorrow, we'd go back to the trusty old paper maps. And what would even be the point of going to the moon in the first place? Hell, for all the cold war screed, we could have accompolished much more, and more safely without putting humans in space.
The more firma, the less terra, I'll tell you what.
Then again, it's not like we'd do anything with the money we saved by avoiding space.
People have summited without oxygen. It doesn't have much, but it has enough to get to the top, and it has enough to get just below the summit without carrying oxygen.
Ask them why they call it the "Death Zone".
Difference between there and space is it takes a little longer to die if you try to exist without supplemental O2 mix. Some distinction.
Re:Worse than the space station? No.
on
Let's Not Go To Mars
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I'm sure there is a huge psychological discrepancy between being in orbit around Earth in a space station equipped with an emergency escape capsule, and being out in the middle of space with little to no hope of rescue.
Kinda like the days of sailing ships. You were out on the ocean in a little wooden ship, and no one to save you. Safety culture has most people people brainwashed into accepting no risk. Which is why we have houses in gated communities that are protected by ADT Security, and with a handy safe room.
There is another whole world out there, more interesting and more exciting than getting a good return on your investments, and extracting every last possible second out of life. And safety culture is doing it's best to stamp that shit out. WIthout hurting anyone of course.
And Safety culture really really really hates the idea of going to Mars. It's a scary place. Someone might get hurt.
Re:Worse than the space station? No.
on
Let's Not Go To Mars
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
(Gotta love the passive voice. Always a favorite of PR firms and politicians.)
And people who can't understand past the third grade level.
With what kind of (heavy) machinery would the water and soil be extracted? And what would power it? Don't say "solar power", because the Sun appears much smaller when viewed from Mars, and thus receives much less energy.
ahem.... There are solar powered doodads on Mars as we write this, happily motoring about, an doing research.
Slashdot Mirror
And just when I finally won the internet yesterday.
Do you also react that way to things like "2 + 2 = 4" and other basic stuff?
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.
because the cloud never fails - only we can fail the cloud.
I failed the cloud once, luckily I wasn't sky diving.
Say 20 Hail Cupertino's and a good act of contrition, my son.
But let me be frank - this is so goddamned fscking ridiculously friggin stupid that only a true idiot would think it was remotely an intelligent idea. Memory is cheap, so what kind of retard would want to store their applications in the fail-inevitble cloud bubble?
So now we have the always secure cloud giving out our life history (check), the always avalable cloud not providing our applications when we need them. Because everytone is going to have all the internet bandwidth they need, when they need it. - right?
The cloud is going to seriously fuck over this country one of thees days. But somehow, it won't be the cloud's fault, because the cloud never fails - only we can fail the cloud.
However, as someone who only has the occasional need, or who wants to prototype a couple, then order 20 of them. I was working on a home automation project, perfect example, because once my design is fully prototyped, I want to send off and have a bunch of them made, because I need at least 2-3 for each room of the house.
I am not making those pcbs by hand, and I don't make pcbs by hand now, so, it really doesn't make sense for me to start.
For certain, the more boards you need, the more sense it makes to have a board house do them. The cost per board plummets.
I am usually only making one copy ever. Doing it on a perfboard (for hole mounted stuff) or etching my own PCB is much faster than ordering a PCB (and actually having the layout in a format that the company accepts) and waiting a few weeks for it to arrive.
I haven't found their one-off boards to be all that inexpensive either. And then there is rework.
We're makin' stuff!
And the answer to the submitter of the article is that yes, it makes no sense to hand make PC boards. Nor does it make sense to make things at all. Just be a good consumer and purchase things to keep the economy strong.
Meanwhile, I'll make my own at home. I don't care if it makes sense to him.
If you're prototyping, why in hell not use "hole-mounted stuff"? In the time it takes you to solder on two or three surface mount components, you can have the whole circuit breadboarded up and smoke flying.
You must be either the worst SM component worker or the best through hole worker in the world.
I've been working with Surface mount for several years now, and while different, I haven't seen that wild ratio of work speed you claim.
The main reason to shift to SMT is that there aren't all that many non SMT active components available any more.
I had no idea he was the guy that conceived of the space station.
Hows about you show us what percentage of people kill other people or deliberately get into positions where they're likely have to kill other people.
I've presented my thesis, and the data to back it up I might consider giving out some more if anyone else would step up to the plate and hand out something other than telling me I am wrong..
TL;DR version. No. Let's see your data first. Let's limit this to one year in the US, to keep it manageable (and to keep it in an environment where most people don't think they need to kill others to be safe). Some people do like killing, but most don't.
My thesis is that humans are a violent species, and that they enjoy killing each other
If that was true, everyone would be out killing all the time, or at least trying.
So I guess the constant warfare we've been in is actually a game of bridge? We are out killing all the time.
What you are talking about is murder, a subset of killing. It is highly discouraged, because it is killing on of "ours". Killing one of "theirs, which is whoever the enemy is at any given moment, is an entirely different matter, indeed, the goal. The guy behind the "American Sniper" saga is a hero because he can line 'em up and drop 'em, no more trouble than harvesting a deer to feed the family.
Anyhow, if people wish to believe that one of our core activities is something we hate - they can. I fear they are merely fooling themselves. We have an innate genetically derived tendency toward violence. It almost certainly was a big help in surviving. It might very well prove our undoing, as our big brains allow us to kill more efficiently than our lizard brain can comprehend.
There's nothing wrong with my logic except that it contradicts your religion.
Allow me.. Evrything is not like everything else. The kid may or may not have been singled out because of ethnicity. But even if he was, it does not follow that every child that has run afoul of the isane zero tolerance/ Police in schools disaster has been singled out for their ethnicity.
I'll let you go now - The 700 Club is on pretty soon, and you don't want to miss it.
He later apologized and retweeted the President's White House invitation.
Jezzuz, so glad I don't use Twitter. The whole thing is designed to get people to make stupid knee jerk reactions.
Let's clarify real quick. Overall I agree with your point, but:
My full apologies here folks, This is slashdot, and I probably insulted some of the linux folks with my asinine comparison.
From what I have heard, there were two American planes that you never wanted to see as the enemy - The Tomcat and the Warthog. One's a beauty, and one's fugly.
Come now, the F-14 Tomcat isn't that ugly ;)
Had me for a moment, there! Pretty well played, sir.
Most of those wars involved only a small number of Americans, and some of them really aren't wars. The US is a big place, with lots of people. Being constantly involved with little wars doesn't mean there's much fighting per capita.
And Vietnam was a police action, so it like - wasn't really a war - right? I'm throwing down the gauntlet. My thesis is that humans are a violent species, and that they enjoy killing each other. A lot of people say I am wrong. Not much else, just that I am wrong.
So can you do anything other than claim "Well, they were not big wars - so you are wrong? Reminds me of the old Galagher joke - "Be careful driving home from the show folks - it only counts if you get killed on a holiday!" If it wasnt a big war, those deaths don't count?
It's a simple request. I use evidence backed up with some psychology. Evidence is the constant warfare by both the US and the rest of the world. Evidence is the things we do to each other on a daily basis. Psychology is that people tend to not do what they do not like to do. Gauntlet. Data. Hand it over. Challenge accepted?
The Vietnam War was grossly mishandled. Thinking that body counts mean anything in a war like that was just a symptom of the greater dysfunction.
The dysfunction is that humans really enjoy killing each other.
I've presented my thesis here and in some other posts here, showing that the US has been in virtually constant war through the 20th century, and the 21st century - that isn't an anti-US thing, because they were just the ones I researched. I've given psychology, my consideration that it is a genetic trait toward violence, and hard data to back it up.
So instead of everyone just telling me I am wrong, how about some evidence to back up your claims I am wrong?
I can only hope to someday f*ck up so badly that someone will pay me $21M to go away...
Its the new American dream.
Well, by definition it isn't linux, since it runs a different kernel.
And yet how odd. I open up a terminal, and viola, almost everything is the same.
Your kernel distinction is interesting and true enough. but in everyday use, it's a Unixy OS, and whether or not my mentor is a "fucking tool " as the AC so eloquently put it, once he noted that fact to me, I suddenly became a whole lot more capable in Linux, because I applied OSX knowledge to it.
As for his work, he uses a Macbook Pro for all his development work on emergency communication programs, a complete cross platform suite for Linux, OSX, and Windows. Not too bad for that AC's "fucking tool".
If you like, I can give you his contact info so you can tell him how wrong he is.
Plus you seem to be arguing that humans don't enjoy killing each other? It's what we do best.
Uh, no, it's not. I don't believe there's any other predator that can live with so little violence with the kind of population densities humans manage in our cities. That's why we took over the planet.
Did you see my list of American wars of the 20th century?
The fact that we had daily body counts in Vietnam kinda argues against that.
No, that just shows that journalists needed something to talk about. Regularly reported body counts weren't driven by the military, they were ordered by politicians pandering to the media.
Hard to argue when you use the same points I would use to prove my point. Your thesis is that Americans didn't want those body counts, and they were forced upon us?
I was pretty young at the time, but a lot of people I talked to at the time could recite the body counts at will, and took them as proof we were "putting it to those "gooks"". Sorry, some of the folks down at the legion talked that way.
Hell, we even baited the VC by taking an area killing off a whole bunch, then moving off to let them come back in, then moving in again. It wasn't a war to reclaim land - that could have been over in a few months. It was a war to kill people, nothing more, nothing less.
nobody wins wars, it's a simple fact.
The US emerged from WW2 in rather good shape. But if you are going to take the position that if one person is harmed, everyone loses. That's a personal take on a large scale event.
Nonetheless, I do ultimately agree with Regis' premise that Mars should not be the goal simply because Mars is a dead-end. I mean, what are you going to do once you get there that can't be done here on Earth?
Of what use is a newborn baby? Those little bastards take up a lot of resources and time, and all they give you in return is a lot of shit.
When we ask these questions, we do start on a slippery slope. Mankind survived for a long long time without any of the stuff that space travel and rocketry brought us. A GPS is nice and all, but if they disappeared tomorrow, we'd go back to the trusty old paper maps. And what would even be the point of going to the moon in the first place? Hell, for all the cold war screed, we could have accompolished much more, and more safely without putting humans in space.
The more firma, the less terra, I'll tell you what.
Then again, it's not like we'd do anything with the money we saved by avoiding space.
People have summited without oxygen. It doesn't have much, but it has enough to get to the top, and it has enough to get just below the summit without carrying oxygen.
Ask them why they call it the "Death Zone".
Difference between there and space is it takes a little longer to die if you try to exist without supplemental O2 mix. Some distinction.
I'm sure there is a huge psychological discrepancy between being in orbit around Earth in a space station equipped with an emergency escape capsule, and being out in the middle of space with little to no hope of rescue.
Kinda like the days of sailing ships. You were out on the ocean in a little wooden ship, and no one to save you. Safety culture has most people people brainwashed into accepting no risk. Which is why we have houses in gated communities that are protected by ADT Security, and with a handy safe room.
There is another whole world out there, more interesting and more exciting than getting a good return on your investments, and extracting every last possible second out of life. And safety culture is doing it's best to stamp that shit out. WIthout hurting anyone of course.
And Safety culture really really really hates the idea of going to Mars. It's a scary place. Someone might get hurt.
(Gotta love the passive voice. Always a favorite of PR firms and politicians.)
And people who can't understand past the third grade level.
With what kind of (heavy) machinery would the water and soil be extracted? And what would power it? Don't say "solar power", because the Sun appears much smaller when viewed from Mars, and thus receives much less energy.
ahem.... There are solar powered doodads on Mars as we write this, happily motoring about, an doing research.
At least they could be doing research.