good bet if you want reliability limited to 43TB of writes. Or did you miss that small print in the warranty?
No one will read the warranty. When they send it in they'll be denied with an explanation of "You wrote too much to this drive, see? This hidden, unreliable, untrustworthy counter in the firmware says so.".
I thought AMD chips are competitive in some parts of the market (not top-end, though). The last chip I bought was an AMD A10 - 4 cpu cores and 6 graphic cores on the one die. It saves having to buy a separate graphic card and the graphic cores have full access to the same memory that the CPU cores use which I think is an interesting architecture.
They compete on performance / $. They win at cores / $. They lose at performance. They lose at TDP.
LOL! What if I said "Racism only applies when the government does it."? Would you flip your shit at how absurd that is? You probably would, and you still wouldn't see how absurd your own statement is.
Censorship occurs when things are censored, government or not. 1st amendment violations occur when the government limits or criminalizes speech.
You're a heterophobic, racist, sexist, bigot, aren't you? You're literally dismissing someone's opinions, views, and experiences based on their sexuality, race, and gender, without consideration, simply because they differ from your own established views. You're matching the exact definitions for these things, ignoring the whole hijacking of "phobic" that PC clowns like you pulled with "homophobic".
there were endless posts about how "just not liking gays" was somehow a perfectly okay position to take
It absolutely is an perfectly fine position to take. People are allowed to like, dislike, hate, and love whatever they want, for whatever reasons they want. How they act on those feelings is a different matter entirely. If people like you are FOR tolerance and acceptance as you always claim, why is it that you're always driving a hate train at anyone who disagrees with your views? Why is tolerance and acceptance limited to the groups and opinions you like? If you were open-minded, tolerant, or accepting, you would abide the opinions and views of others even when you disagreed with them, and you would simply ignore those that you found offensive and instead focus on actual crimes, not your phony thought crime bullshit.
3 != 4. A triangle is not a square. Red is not blue. Hydrogen is not helium. A dog is not a cat. If the coin landed heads-up, the coin did not land tails-up. If someone was in location A at time T, they could not have been in location B at time T committing crime C.
That are some nice claims, can you prove any of them? I bet that a lot of smarter minds than yours have tried to prove the first one and failed. As for the others, a presumption of inequality is not proof.
They are all proven by their definitions, which are to the exclusion of the other possibilities.
If the ISP is redirecting every port coming from your IP, it doesn't matter what protocol you use. Instead of getting the "hotel" like page, you get nothing.
If the ISP is redirecting/blocking everything, there will be hell (and a lot of its lawyers) to pay the moment someone with VOIP tries to dial 911 after they were blocked.
If data of any form can get out of the pipe to a host not controlled by the ISP, then the blocking can be circumvented.
Sure you fucking can. Anything defined in such a way as to exclude other possible definitions can have the latter definitions be proven in the negative just as surely as the former definition can be in the positive.
3 != 4. A triangle is not a square. Red is not blue. Hydrogen is not helium. A dog is not a cat. If the coin landed heads-up, the coin did not land tails-up. If someone was in location A at time T, they could not have been in location B at time T committing crime C. You are not smart.
They're making wild assumptions about the genders of the backers and trying to drawn conclusions about that
No, they have a hypothesis that may one day be tested on the entire population in question, they formed their hypothesis on the basis of laboratory tests, Extrapolation is a perfectly valid method of making a prediction (and quite possibly the only useful method), corporations and political organisations all over the planet spend gazillions on the results of such "focus group" tests.
Of course nature is what it is and "the future" always reserves the right to to ignore our most confident predictions. In other words science is in the business of disproving its best answers by replacing them with better ones, it can never prove anything no matter how high you stack the data. If nobody has bothered with the question before then obviously the answer these people have is currently the best answer anyone has.
I was a teenager in the 70's, the social and behavioural sciences have come along way since Feynman pointed out their fundamental problem, the findings from the "Stanford prison experiments" during the same decade is an important, uncomfortable, and sadly underrated example of an early "law of human behaviour".
Uh, no. You can't extrapolate your lab setting to the real model when you don't have any info on the real model to base your lab setting on. Even if they knew the gender distribution of backers, AND of all visitors who ended up not backing, they still wouldn't be representing the Kickstarter model of people coming upon a Kickstarter of their own volition and deciding to support it or not.
The ONLY way to get this data is for Kickstarter to provide it. The ONLY way to accurately approximate it is to replicate the conditions under which people visit and decide to support (or not support) a Kickstarter. Their scenario doesn't do that in the slightest. You can't even get accurate data on how often people fart in a lab scenario.
As I read the article, the researchers couldn't determine the sex of the contributors to the Kickstarter projects. But they did notice that tech projects started by women had more success getting funding. Their laboratory experiment indicated some women are more likely to support other women. So they conclude that the Kickstarter projects have the same causation.
I kind of wonder about that conclusion though. The type of person who would fund a Kickstarter project comes from a much different population than the (I assume) students they used in their lab. That said, it is a reasonable hypothesis. Obama certainly gets virtually all of the black vote, Hillary gets a lot of her support from women.
Yup. They're making wild assumptions about the genders of the backers and trying to drawn conclusions about that. They simply do not have that information and cannot approximate it, especially when they're claiming that gender plays a role in funding.
That's a roller-coaster chart. Two incidents of being propped up... then a solid downhill with a few bumps for the rest of the time. Wasn't this near a zero three years ago? Guess where it's headed back to...
It was near zero when it started out, it slowly but surely climbed, and then it sky rocketed once the frenzy started. There's a lot of motion if you're a speculator looking to day trade, but if you're actually using Bitcoin then it's been comparable to about $500 for several months. The current period is actually the longest, most stable one it's ever had since the masses learned of it.
It may not be completely logical to have kilo as one of only 3 multiples of ten that does not use a capital letter, but there is no ambiguity in the standard for which symbol stands for kilo.
There's no ambiguity for "k", sure. But there's plenty of ambiguity when you go ahead and USE k, or m, or g, or u, or anything, in any field. It's absurd to say "kb" is confusing because people might think it means 1000 bits, yet to go ahead and use m for meter and milli, G for Giga and the gravitational constant, about a dozen stylings of u for half a dozen different things, k for kilo and the spring constant, etc.
I keep seeing that K is for 1000, but as far as I know that's simply not true. It's just people using some broken version of metric prefixes. k = kilo and K is Kelvin specifically to avoid confusion if you are using the metric system. Having m for mili and meter is bad enough.
No no no. Metric and SI are totally logical and have no ambiguity! I'd explain why but it's currently 17.85 and I only have 1.2 decaminutes to get to my next meeting.
We're well-past Web 2.0. We're in Apps.0 now. Snapchat is the king of this shit. They release a video of new features and push it out to all users. There is no description of how to use the features, or when they will be added, etc. You basically have to try touching, swiping, pinching, groping, and otherwise molesting every element of the application in order to find the features.
The same goes with Google. They insist on hiding shit behind swipes. If you see something you now have to try touching it, long touching it, swiping it up, swiping it down, swiping it left, and swiping it right in order to figure out what you can do with it. For example, a recent update to Google + Locations added the ability to start a hangout with someone from the map, You find the person on the map, touch their icon/pin and then...? Swipe their name (at the bottom) to the side. There is zero indication that this is possible. You just have to know it.
And don't even get me started on that shitty menu icon Google uses (and everyone else copies). Three horizontal lines does not mean "Menu".
I dunno, I'd say it's fair to call the user interface at most ATMs and credit-card machines intuitive. Granted, some of those user interfaces aren't graphical, but some are.
To put it another way, the learning curve on these things is so shallow that if there's a difference between its shallow learning curve and what you would call an "intuitive GUI" I'm not seeing it.
Everything you think as being "intuitive" is simply you being used to other software behaving in a similar way, or you expecting some icon to match the behavior / usage of a real-world item it kind of looks like. It's training, whether you realize it or not.
UX is willy-nilly bullshit 99% of the time that you'll have to revisit over, and over, and over with each new fad. Any changes to "UX" shit will also force you to unnecessarily rewrite half of your documentation.
Air doesn't have to "move faster". Viewing the profile of a wing and using it as a fixed reference point, the air on top doesn't have to move faster in the horizontal plane at all, it just has to be deflected. Air moving at a velocity (or a relatively faster one) doesn't create a force. Air moving faster than other air doesn't create lift. What creates lift is the deflection of air. This is achieved by the angle of attack of the wings. When air has to change direction there's acceleration, and thus force.
If lift was caused by air moving faster over one face of the wing than the other, it would be impossible for planes to fly upside down. The shape of the wings (top face vs bottom face) has a very minor role in creating lift. Wings are shaped the way they are for stability and efficiency (the reduced drag and slight spoiler effect).
Get some large pieces of cardboard. Your latest Amazon shipment or pizza order will do. Cut out rectangle wings and strap them onto your arms so they are level when you stretch out your arms to your sides. Spin in a circle. No lift. Stop. Tilt the wings up (leading edge is higher). Spin in a circle. Holy shit your arms want to ascend. Stop. Tilt the wings down (leading edge is lower). Spin in a circle. Holy shit your arms want to descend. Stop.
Lift is due to the deflection of air under the wing. The difference in relative linear velocity between the airstream above the wing and the airstream below the wing is a result of this deflection. This difference is not the cause of lift nor is it dependent on the shape of the wing looking like a traditional wing. Perfectly flat wings will do just fine.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems a good bet if you want reliability
good bet if you want reliability limited to 43TB of writes. Or did you miss that small print in the warranty?
No one will read the warranty.
When they send it in they'll be denied with an explanation of "You wrote too much to this drive, see? This hidden, unreliable, untrustworthy counter in the firmware says so.".
I thought AMD chips are competitive in some parts of the market (not top-end, though). The last chip I bought was an AMD A10 - 4 cpu cores and 6 graphic cores on the one die. It saves having to buy a separate graphic card and the graphic cores have full access to the same memory that the CPU cores use which I think is an interesting architecture.
They compete on performance / $.
They win at cores / $.
They lose at performance.
They lose at TDP.
Look up "drawn and quartered".
Or look up "wishbone".
1. Censorship only applies to governments.
LOL!
What if I said "Racism only applies when the government does it."? Would you flip your shit at how absurd that is?
You probably would, and you still wouldn't see how absurd your own statement is.
Censorship occurs when things are censored, government or not.
1st amendment violations occur when the government limits or criminalizes speech.
You're a straight white male, aren't you?
You're a heterophobic, racist, sexist, bigot, aren't you?
You're literally dismissing someone's opinions, views, and experiences based on their sexuality, race, and gender, without consideration, simply because they differ from your own established views.
You're matching the exact definitions for these things, ignoring the whole hijacking of "phobic" that PC clowns like you pulled with "homophobic".
there were endless posts about how "just not liking gays" was somehow a perfectly okay position to take
It absolutely is an perfectly fine position to take. People are allowed to like, dislike, hate, and love whatever they want, for whatever reasons they want. How they act on those feelings is a different matter entirely.
If people like you are FOR tolerance and acceptance as you always claim, why is it that you're always driving a hate train at anyone who disagrees with your views?
Why is tolerance and acceptance limited to the groups and opinions you like? If you were open-minded, tolerant, or accepting, you would abide the opinions and views of others even when you disagreed with them, and you would simply ignore those that you found offensive and instead focus on actual crimes, not your phony thought crime bullshit.
You don't think you can define one integer to be equal to another? Think again.
Numbers are numbers. They are distinct quantum values (in any base). You cannot redefine them. That's why they're often referred to as constants.
Go ahead. Prove 3=4.
3 != 4.
A triangle is not a square.
Red is not blue.
Hydrogen is not helium.
A dog is not a cat.
If the coin landed heads-up, the coin did not land tails-up.
If someone was in location A at time T, they could not have been in location B at time T committing crime C.
That are some nice claims, can you prove any of them?
I bet that a lot of smarter minds than yours have tried to prove the first one and failed.
As for the others, a presumption of inequality is not proof.
They are all proven by their definitions, which are to the exclusion of the other possibilities.
If the ISP is redirecting every port coming from your IP, it doesn't matter what protocol you use. Instead of getting the "hotel" like page, you get nothing.
If the ISP is redirecting/blocking everything, there will be hell (and a lot of its lawyers) to pay the moment someone with VOIP tries to dial 911 after they were blocked.
If data of any form can get out of the pipe to a host not controlled by the ISP, then the blocking can be circumvented.
You cannot prove a negative.
Sure you fucking can. Anything defined in such a way as to exclude other possible definitions can have the latter definitions be proven in the negative just as surely as the former definition can be in the positive.
3 != 4.
A triangle is not a square.
Red is not blue.
Hydrogen is not helium.
A dog is not a cat.
If the coin landed heads-up, the coin did not land tails-up.
If someone was in location A at time T, they could not have been in location B at time T committing crime C.
You are not smart.
They're making wild assumptions about the genders of the backers and trying to drawn conclusions about that
No, they have a hypothesis that may one day be tested on the entire population in question, they formed their hypothesis on the basis of laboratory tests, Extrapolation is a perfectly valid method of making a prediction (and quite possibly the only useful method), corporations and political organisations all over the planet spend gazillions on the results of such "focus group" tests.
Of course nature is what it is and "the future" always reserves the right to to ignore our most confident predictions. In other words science is in the business of disproving its best answers by replacing them with better ones, it can never prove anything no matter how high you stack the data. If nobody has bothered with the question before then obviously the answer these people have is currently the best answer anyone has.
I was a teenager in the 70's, the social and behavioural sciences have come along way since Feynman pointed out their fundamental problem, the findings from the "Stanford prison experiments" during the same decade is an important, uncomfortable, and sadly underrated example of an early "law of human behaviour".
Uh, no. You can't extrapolate your lab setting to the real model when you don't have any info on the real model to base your lab setting on.
Even if they knew the gender distribution of backers, AND of all visitors who ended up not backing, they still wouldn't be representing the Kickstarter model of people coming upon a Kickstarter of their own volition and deciding to support it or not.
The ONLY way to get this data is for Kickstarter to provide it. The ONLY way to accurately approximate it is to replicate the conditions under which people visit and decide to support (or not support) a Kickstarter. Their scenario doesn't do that in the slightest. You can't even get accurate data on how often people fart in a lab scenario.
As I read the article, the researchers couldn't determine the sex of the contributors to the Kickstarter projects. But they did notice that tech projects started by women had more success getting funding. Their laboratory experiment indicated some women are more likely to support other women. So they conclude that the Kickstarter projects have the same causation.
I kind of wonder about that conclusion though. The type of person who would fund a Kickstarter project comes from a much different population than the (I assume) students they used in their lab. That said, it is a reasonable hypothesis. Obama certainly gets virtually all of the black vote, Hillary gets a lot of her support from women.
Yup.
They're making wild assumptions about the genders of the backers and trying to drawn conclusions about that. They simply do not have that information and cannot approximate it, especially when they're claiming that gender plays a role in funding.
That's a roller-coaster chart. Two incidents of being propped up... then a solid downhill with a few bumps for the rest of the time. Wasn't this near a zero three years ago? Guess where it's headed back to...
It was near zero when it started out, it slowly but surely climbed, and then it sky rocketed once the frenzy started.
There's a lot of motion if you're a speculator looking to day trade, but if you're actually using Bitcoin then it's been comparable to about $500 for several months.
The current period is actually the longest, most stable one it's ever had since the masses learned of it.
Hearing bullets fly past my head doesn't really affect my enjoyment of any movie.
Why the fuck not? When it's done well, it's great.
It also implies that places like WalMart dont still have racks dedicated to 3D movies or that they not still being released. I buy them all the time.
There is exactly one movie where 3D makes it better. So unless you're buying another copy of Gravity every time you go into a WalMart, you're a fool.
Headphones are good for stereo sound. They are trash for surround sound, and the "surround sound headphones" are even worse for it.
Bitcoin is falling in value so rapidly that it doesn't work.
Wrong.
https://coinbase.com/charts
Use a shitty pre-paid phone when you're out rabble rousing.
Wipe it before you leave the house.
It may not be completely logical to have kilo as one of only 3 multiples of ten that does not use a capital letter, but there is no ambiguity in the standard for which symbol stands for kilo.
There's no ambiguity for "k", sure. But there's plenty of ambiguity when you go ahead and USE k, or m, or g, or u, or anything, in any field.
It's absurd to say "kb" is confusing because people might think it means 1000 bits, yet to go ahead and use m for meter and milli, G for Giga and the gravitational constant, about a dozen stylings of u for half a dozen different things, k for kilo and the spring constant, etc.
I keep seeing that K is for 1000, but as far as I know that's simply not true.
It's just people using some broken version of metric prefixes.
k = kilo and K is Kelvin specifically to avoid confusion if you are using the metric system.
Having m for mili and meter is bad enough.
No no no. Metric and SI are totally logical and have no ambiguity!
I'd explain why but it's currently 17.85 and I only have 1.2 decaminutes to get to my next meeting.
The talent behind xkcd is a former NASA engineer.
I think you misspelled "hack".
We're well-past Web 2.0. We're in Apps.0 now.
Snapchat is the king of this shit. They release a video of new features and push it out to all users. There is no description of how to use the features, or when they will be added, etc. You basically have to try touching, swiping, pinching, groping, and otherwise molesting every element of the application in order to find the features.
The same goes with Google. They insist on hiding shit behind swipes. If you see something you now have to try touching it, long touching it, swiping it up, swiping it down, swiping it left, and swiping it right in order to figure out what you can do with it. For example, a recent update to Google + Locations added the ability to start a hangout with someone from the map, You find the person on the map, touch their icon/pin and then...? Swipe their name (at the bottom) to the side. There is zero indication that this is possible. You just have to know it.
And don't even get me started on that shitty menu icon Google uses (and everyone else copies). Three horizontal lines does not mean "Menu".
Plus, there is no such thing as intuitive GUI
I dunno, I'd say it's fair to call the user interface at most ATMs and credit-card machines intuitive. Granted, some of those user interfaces aren't graphical, but some are.
To put it another way, the learning curve on these things is so shallow that if there's a difference between its shallow learning curve and what you would call an "intuitive GUI" I'm not seeing it.
Everything you think as being "intuitive" is simply you being used to other software behaving in a similar way, or you expecting some icon to match the behavior / usage of a real-world item it kind of looks like. It's training, whether you realize it or not.
Invest in both.
Fuck no.
Documentation is worthwhile.
UX is willy-nilly bullshit 99% of the time that you'll have to revisit over, and over, and over with each new fad. Any changes to "UX" shit will also force you to unnecessarily rewrite half of your documentation.
Air doesn't have to "move faster". Viewing the profile of a wing and using it as a fixed reference point, the air on top doesn't have to move faster in the horizontal plane at all, it just has to be deflected. Air moving at a velocity (or a relatively faster one) doesn't create a force. Air moving faster than other air doesn't create lift.
What creates lift is the deflection of air. This is achieved by the angle of attack of the wings. When air has to change direction there's acceleration, and thus force.
If lift was caused by air moving faster over one face of the wing than the other, it would be impossible for planes to fly upside down. The shape of the wings (top face vs bottom face) has a very minor role in creating lift. Wings are shaped the way they are for stability and efficiency (the reduced drag and slight spoiler effect).
Get some large pieces of cardboard. Your latest Amazon shipment or pizza order will do. Cut out rectangle wings and strap them onto your arms so they are level when you stretch out your arms to your sides. Spin in a circle. No lift. Stop.
Tilt the wings up (leading edge is higher). Spin in a circle. Holy shit your arms want to ascend. Stop.
Tilt the wings down (leading edge is lower). Spin in a circle. Holy shit your arms want to descend. Stop.
Lift is due to the deflection of air under the wing. The difference in relative linear velocity between the airstream above the wing and the airstream below the wing is a result of this deflection. This difference is not the cause of lift nor is it dependent on the shape of the wing looking like a traditional wing. Perfectly flat wings will do just fine.