You know, if asteroids were really a big problem, then life on Earth wouldn't have gotten a toehold, and no one would be here to worry about it. Ain't the Anthropic Principle grand? This just sounds like a way to separate US taxpayers from their money through fear, not unlike the War on Terrah.
But just think how useful the orbital lasers will be for earth wars, too. Who can be trusted not to just take a shot or two to "save $NATIONALITY lives"?
When have you ever been at the gas station and filled the gas tank up to 90%, 72%, or even 28% as this reporter did?
This week. If I fill the tank more than about 3/4, it leaks when the car is on an incline. (Yeah, I need a new tank. Ain't gonna happen.) I don't run out of gas because I know how much gas is there (2 gal when the needle hits E, whether it's 0F or 100F outside, that's about 35 city miles at 0F to 50 miles at 100F, always assuming I don't suck up rust and clog the filter).
Dont 99% of customer service lines have some sort of disclaimer which says "this call may be monitored for customer service purposes"?
You think they have no oversight into what their reps are saying?
How many are actually monitored? You think in a small company they've got a supervisor monitoring all the calls (some of which seem to have been to the company PR person, and we all know how accurate those folks are) all the time? Look, I don't know what they told him, and neither do you. And neither does Musk, unless they tape all the calls (in which case I'll look forward to listening to the recordings that Musk will certainly release).
It's not about the.6 miles. It's about trying to say "the car died right in the parking lot" in his review.
Who said that? That's not either stated or suggested in the review or in the rebuttal. If you're saying that's what the author was trying to do, maybe you ought to offer some evidence.
Are you saying you know what was said? No, you don't. I don't. And Elon Musk doesn't.
Are you saying we should believe either of them? Hmm.. lessee, a reporter who doesn't particularly like EVs and wants to raise his page views and maybe get an "attaboy!" from his boss, vs. a guy with a huge ego and an even bigger amount of money riding on the outcome, who wants to make a big deal over the fact that the reporter drove the EV something like 2 miles (1%) further than they had planned.
Plus he drove.6 miles in circles mostly at speeds between 10-15 MP while supposed "looking for a charging station". If you didn't find it on your first time circling the small 100 car lot, why wouldn't you just slow down to look for it rather than going in circles around the lot 30-40 times at a speed too fast to carefully look?
I expect that you've identified the problem. He ran out of juice because he drove the car 0.6 miles further than they'd planned for.
Musk refutes the claim that he was told by Tesla employees to act as he did.
What, you figure Musk was there when they talked to him? No, he called the employees and asked them what they said. You figure they're going to admit screwing up to the big boss who's clearly pissed off? Or, Musk may just be claiming the advice was different, without even checking. I don't know, you don't know, and (unless Musk was recording the calls) nobody knows for sure what was said.
Say you are copying files from a network drive to local, and you get 90% of the file(s) done in an hour. Then, the network usage spikes, so your bandwidth drops to 1% of what it was. A progress bar would show 90%, even though you are going to get that last It should take, if my brain is working right, just over another hour to copy the remaining file(s). So, what do you want the progress bar to show? 90% because only 10% of the bits are left? 50% because that's the time estimate? Maybe 2 of 3 files were copied already and the remaining file is huge, so should the progress bar show 66% to show that 2/3rds are done?
You've got 90% done, so you're at 90% progress. I'm arguing that progress bars should not be "time to completion", for that reason, that you can't easily predict those variables.
OTOH, my bittorrent client uses bytes still needed at the current speed to predict time to completion, that works too, but that technique may not generalize well to other tasks. To me, time to completion should be a number, not a bar. To have a bar, you need to know what the maximum is. Hell, show both % complete and time to completion if you want, but it may not be worth the work, mostly the user just wants to see that progress is being made.
In your example, I'd want to see a bar showing the percentage of total bytes done. Some posts here are arguing that it may not be practical to know total bits ahead of time. Well, yeah, but that's not true of most situations. If you can't (easily) know the total number of bytes, then use number of files. If you can't easily know that, then number of modules, folders, or whatever larger unit you can easily predict. No progress bar is going to be perfect, and that's ok, "best guess" is ok. The principal purpose is to a) show the user that the program hasn't died, and b) to allow the user to make some sort of estimate, however rough, about time to completion.
One reason is the progress bar starts out as just a generic tool to show that your loading hasn't froze
And a spinning asterisk or swirlie does that fine, without implying anything about "progress" or "time left".
Another reason is it is difficult to estimate time left.
We're not talking about a "time left" bar, we're talking about a progress bar (although if things continue at a constant rate, the two should be the same). While there are exceptions, mostly the program should have a decent estimate of the total amount of work to be completed. At half the tasks done, the bar should be at 50%. Yes, things like fragmentation and other tasks running will impact the time to completion, but they won't affect the amount of work that has been already completed by the program.
Exactly. Back in the days when (DIP) RAM was socketed , I would often see failures that were resolved by reseating the RAM chips. I don't recall any that were BIOS related, but those were socketed too, so might have done. Come to think of it, I've seen that with memory sticks too, but not often, that kind of socket seems to be more reliable.
Boeing's Phantom Works, which works on various classified projects and has been involved in space research, went as far as acquiring and testing the EmDrive, but say they are no longer working with Shawyer.
I'm sure if the drive was useful in any meaningful way it would have been utilized.
Maybe (though Western Union first dismissed the telephone as a worthless toy). But note that they didn't say they weren't using the drive, or principles thereof. They just said they weren't working with Shawyer. If it's classified, who would know if you were infringing on a... does Shawyer even have a patent?
Cops determine that someone has been downloading CP, and trace it back to your house. They launch an immediate investigation, with you as the obvious prime suspect. They're aware that they can't prosecute on IP alone, so they do their diligence, and after searching your seized devices, they exonerate you. Publicly, even.
You still lose your family and your job, and your life is basically over, because your name once appeared in a report investigating kiddy pr0n. You will be personally threatened, maybe even assaulted, by vigilantes who want to "protect" their children from "monsters" like you. There is literally no amount of public exoneration that will make the average Joe believe you're not a pervert.
So you're saying, "there are a lot of abusive asshats out there." That's true. Are you going to let that keep you from doing things?
There's no shame in saying "yes, my neighbors, employer, and family are ignorant bigots and fools and possibly dangerous". But recognize that's what you are saying.
If you are "proxying" connection, then you are downloading from user D1 and uploading to D2.
No, you are not, and probably have no idea that "My Pet Sheep" is being transferred. Your computer is doing those things, certainly, but you didn't specifically tell it to. So let them sue your computer. If corporations can be treated as people, why not computers?
And this would prompt more development of AI, so that your computer could find an AI lawyer to defend it. It could pay in bitcoin. Of course, your computer's reputation would suffer, no other computers would want to have anything to do with a computer that wants to do it with a sheep. But hey, you can't break an omelette without making sheep.
We have monthly plans, and pre pay plans. The difference is the monthly plans are honest about it. In a monthly plan you pay $X per month to get Y minutes and Z texts in a pre-pay plan you pay $X to get Y minutes and Z texts that expire if you don't use them in a month.
Most T-mobile (except the $10 cards) expires in 3 months, and roll over if you refill before it expires. After you've spent $100, expiration period lengthens to a year.
The US treasury mints what, exactly? Nothing that I'm aware of. All the currency in circulation today belongs to private banks, not to the government.
The US treasury mints coins, not private banks.
The Federal Reserve is misnamed, intentionally, to hide the fact that they are neither "federal", nor are they a "reserve".
Well, they're neither fish nor fowl (like the Postal Service). They're not exactly federal, but they're not exactly private. The members of the Board of Governors, including its chairman and vice-chairman, are chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate, but they have long and staggered terms, to prevent any closer control by the government. This seems to be the result of a compromise between those who wanted public control, and the banksters of 1913, though both sides agreed on the need for a central bank to prevent panics.
I have no moral problem with gambling myself, but I don't see how this will help Antigua's case. They still won't get US money and reselling digital goods that you don't own is just going to cost them the support they currently have from the WTO.
The "ownership" of these digital goods has value only due to the government-bestowed monopoly rights that copyright comes with. The WTO ruled that the government of Antigua was exempt from those monopoly rights, due to violations of the law by the government of the USA. The WTO are the ones telling Antigua that they can do it, that doing it is a remedy for the violations of the USA. Why would the WTO then be upset if Antigua does it? That's how the WTO enforces its rulings when faced with scofflaws.
Yah, but that's not the way to "bring Neanderthals back", as Neanderthals anyhow. Plus, these highly regulated days it would raise legal questions, some funnymentalists (and the Church) would raise the question of bestiality and "sex with animals" and the laws regulating that, and if you think bigots today are hard on "mixed-race" kids, wait 'till it's "mixed-species" kids we're dealing with. Though if a corporation can be a "person", Neanderthals should be shoo-ins.
It'll sure make questions about same-sex marriage seem pretty trivial.
I see no moral problems at all from allowing an extinct species to live.
But a Neanderthal wouldn't do that, any more than a single random homo sap would. It's going to need a mate, and a reasonable gene pool. Maybe a couple of thousand of them (with different genetics) would do.
Actually, I do see moral problems, although nowhere as great as those in causing a living species to go extinct. But it might be smarter to start with species that we don't consider sentient (though I'm not sure how one proves that any species more advanced than an amoeba is, or is not). How about passenger pigeons?
Gun control advocates love to indicate the 'logic' that less guns correlates to less homicides. But Logic, also requires that negation hold true. More guns = more homicides... right? However when gun sales have surged in the last 10 years, increasing nearly 40% in the last 10 years, homicides, especially gun related homicides, are down.
Maybe that's true. Maybe it includes all homicides, and maybe it omits 'justifiable' ones or 'accidental' ones. I don't know. But the criterion should be, gun related deaths. Is the number of deaths due to gunshot down?
I simply cannot imagine why anyone making 50K should even be asked to fill out a tax form, much less pay a dime of tax. I do not mean to belittle your income, but I have seen way too many welfare recipients make more than that.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows does not have it (at least not XP.) Linux does, as you said. I use that feature more than I actually print.
Since the pdf995 printer driver prints to file quite nicely, I don't remember if XP does it natively. But I don't have any reason to care.
Are they giving everyone a leg up by breaking all the add-ons?
Didn't break any of the 24 I have installed. YMMV, of course.
What would be best is a multi-role station. The power generated when "idle" could normally be beamed down to earth via microwave, etc
For some reason, I get this image of the kid next door, the one who used to fry ants with his magnifying glass.
You know, if asteroids were really a big problem, then life on Earth wouldn't have gotten a toehold, and no one would be here to worry about it. Ain't the Anthropic Principle grand? This just sounds like a way to separate US taxpayers from their money through fear, not unlike the War on Terrah.
But just think how useful the orbital lasers will be for earth wars, too. Who can be trusted not to just take a shot or two to "save $NATIONALITY lives"?
When have you ever been at the gas station and filled the gas tank up to 90%, 72%, or even 28% as this reporter did?
This week. If I fill the tank more than about 3/4, it leaks when the car is on an incline. (Yeah, I need a new tank. Ain't gonna happen.) I don't run out of gas because I know how much gas is there (2 gal when the needle hits E, whether it's 0F or 100F outside, that's about 35 city miles at 0F to 50 miles at 100F, always assuming I don't suck up rust and clog the filter).
Dont 99% of customer service lines have some sort of disclaimer which says "this call may be monitored for customer service purposes"?
You think they have no oversight into what their reps are saying?
How many are actually monitored? You think in a small company they've got a supervisor monitoring all the calls (some of which seem to have been to the company PR person, and we all know how accurate those folks are) all the time? Look, I don't know what they told him, and neither do you. And neither does Musk, unless they tape all the calls (in which case I'll look forward to listening to the recordings that Musk will certainly release).
It's not about the .6 miles. It's about trying to say "the car died right in the parking lot" in his review.
Who said that? That's not either stated or suggested in the review or in the rebuttal. If you're saying that's what the author was trying to do, maybe you ought to offer some evidence.
Are you saying you know what was said? No, you don't. I don't. And Elon Musk doesn't.
Are you saying we should believe either of them? Hmm.. lessee, a reporter who doesn't particularly like EVs and wants to raise his page views and maybe get an "attaboy!" from his boss, vs. a guy with a huge ego and an even bigger amount of money riding on the outcome, who wants to make a big deal over the fact that the reporter drove the EV something like 2 miles (1%) further than they had planned.
C'mon Elon, we know it's you.
Plus he drove .6 miles in circles mostly at speeds between 10-15 MP while supposed "looking for a charging station". If you didn't find it on your first time circling the small 100 car lot, why wouldn't you just slow down to look for it rather than going in circles around the lot 30-40 times at a speed too fast to carefully look?
I expect that you've identified the problem. He ran out of juice because he drove the car 0.6 miles further than they'd planned for.
Musk refutes the claim that he was told by Tesla employees to act as he did.
What, you figure Musk was there when they talked to him? No, he called the employees and asked them what they said. You figure they're going to admit screwing up to the big boss who's clearly pissed off? Or, Musk may just be claiming the advice was different, without even checking. I don't know, you don't know, and (unless Musk was recording the calls) nobody knows for sure what was said.
Say you are copying files from a network drive to local, and you get 90% of the file(s) done in an hour. Then, the network usage spikes, so your bandwidth drops to 1% of what it was. A progress bar would show 90%, even though you are going to get that last It should take, if my brain is working right, just over another hour to copy the remaining file(s). So, what do you want the progress bar to show? 90% because only 10% of the bits are left? 50% because that's the time estimate? Maybe 2 of 3 files were copied already and the remaining file is huge, so should the progress bar show 66% to show that 2/3rds are done?
You've got 90% done, so you're at 90% progress. I'm arguing that progress bars should not be "time to completion", for that reason, that you can't easily predict those variables.
OTOH, my bittorrent client uses bytes still needed at the current speed to predict time to completion, that works too, but that technique may not generalize well to other tasks. To me, time to completion should be a number, not a bar. To have a bar, you need to know what the maximum is. Hell, show both % complete and time to completion if you want, but it may not be worth the work, mostly the user just wants to see that progress is being made.
In your example, I'd want to see a bar showing the percentage of total bytes done. Some posts here are arguing that it may not be practical to know total bits ahead of time. Well, yeah, but that's not true of most situations. If you can't (easily) know the total number of bytes, then use number of files. If you can't easily know that, then number of modules, folders, or whatever larger unit you can easily predict. No progress bar is going to be perfect, and that's ok, "best guess" is ok. The principal purpose is to a) show the user that the program hasn't died, and b) to allow the user to make some sort of estimate, however rough, about time to completion.
One reason is the progress bar starts out as just a generic tool to show that your loading hasn't froze
And a spinning asterisk or swirlie does that fine, without implying anything about "progress" or "time left".
Another reason is it is difficult to estimate time left.
We're not talking about a "time left" bar, we're talking about a progress bar (although if things continue at a constant rate, the two should be the same). While there are exceptions, mostly the program should have a decent estimate of the total amount of work to be completed. At half the tasks done, the bar should be at 50%. Yes, things like fragmentation and other tasks running will impact the time to completion, but they won't affect the amount of work that has been already completed by the program.
Sockets are unreliable too.
Exactly. Back in the days when (DIP) RAM was socketed , I would often see failures that were resolved by reseating the RAM chips. I don't recall any that were BIOS related, but those were socketed too, so might have done. Come to think of it, I've seen that with memory sticks too, but not often, that kind of socket seems to be more reliable.
Boeing's Phantom Works, which works on various classified projects and has been involved in space research, went as far as acquiring and testing the EmDrive, but say they are no longer working with Shawyer.
I'm sure if the drive was useful in any meaningful way it would have been utilized.
Maybe (though Western Union first dismissed the telephone as a worthless toy). But note that they didn't say they weren't using the drive, or principles thereof. They just said they weren't working with Shawyer. If it's classified, who would know if you were infringing on a... does Shawyer even have a patent?
Cops determine that someone has been downloading CP, and trace it back to your house. They launch an immediate investigation, with you as the obvious prime suspect. They're aware that they can't prosecute on IP alone, so they do their diligence, and after searching your seized devices, they exonerate you. Publicly, even.
You still lose your family and your job, and your life is basically over, because your name once appeared in a report investigating kiddy pr0n. You will be personally threatened, maybe even assaulted, by vigilantes who want to "protect" their children from "monsters" like you. There is literally no amount of public exoneration that will make the average Joe believe you're not a pervert.
So you're saying, "there are a lot of abusive asshats out there." That's true. Are you going to let that keep you from doing things?
There's no shame in saying "yes, my neighbors, employer, and family are ignorant bigots and fools and possibly dangerous". But recognize that's what you are saying.
If you are "proxying" connection, then you are downloading from user D1 and uploading to D2.
No, you are not, and probably have no idea that "My Pet Sheep" is being transferred. Your computer is doing those things, certainly, but you didn't specifically tell it to. So let them sue your computer. If corporations can be treated as people, why not computers?
And this would prompt more development of AI, so that your computer could find an AI lawyer to defend it. It could pay in bitcoin. Of course, your computer's reputation would suffer, no other computers would want to have anything to do with a computer that wants to do it with a sheep. But hey, you can't break an omelette without making sheep.
We have monthly plans, and pre pay plans.
The difference is the monthly plans are honest about it.
In a monthly plan you pay $X per month to get Y minutes and Z texts
in a pre-pay plan you pay $X to get Y minutes and Z texts that expire if you don't use them in a month.
Most T-mobile (except the $10 cards) expires in 3 months, and roll over if you refill before it expires. After you've spent $100, expiration period lengthens to a year.
The US treasury mints what, exactly? Nothing that I'm aware of. All the currency in circulation today belongs to private banks, not to the government.
The US treasury mints coins, not private banks.
The Federal Reserve is misnamed, intentionally, to hide the fact that they are neither "federal", nor are they a "reserve".
Well, they're neither fish nor fowl (like the Postal Service). They're not exactly federal, but they're not exactly private. The members of the Board of Governors, including its chairman and vice-chairman, are chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate, but they have long and staggered terms, to prevent any closer control by the government. This seems to be the result of a compromise between those who wanted public control, and the banksters of 1913, though both sides agreed on the need for a central bank to prevent panics.
I have no moral problem with gambling myself, but I don't see how this will help Antigua's case. They still won't get US money and reselling digital goods that you don't own is just going to cost them the support they currently have from the WTO.
The "ownership" of these digital goods has value only due to the government-bestowed monopoly rights that copyright comes with. The WTO ruled that the government of Antigua was exempt from those monopoly rights, due to violations of the law by the government of the USA. The WTO are the ones telling Antigua that they can do it, that doing it is a remedy for the violations of the USA. Why would the WTO then be upset if Antigua does it? That's how the WTO enforces its rulings when faced with scofflaws.
Neanderthals can interbreed with humans.
Yah, but that's not the way to "bring Neanderthals back", as Neanderthals anyhow. Plus, these highly regulated days it would raise legal questions, some funnymentalists (and the Church) would raise the question of bestiality and "sex with animals" and the laws regulating that, and if you think bigots today are hard on "mixed-race" kids, wait 'till it's "mixed-species" kids we're dealing with. Though if a corporation can be a "person", Neanderthals should be shoo-ins.
It'll sure make questions about same-sex marriage seem pretty trivial.
I see no moral problems at all from allowing an extinct species to live.
But a Neanderthal wouldn't do that, any more than a single random homo sap would. It's going to need a mate, and a reasonable gene pool. Maybe a couple of thousand of them (with different genetics) would do.
Actually, I do see moral problems, although nowhere as great as those in causing a living species to go extinct. But it might be smarter to start with species that we don't consider sentient (though I'm not sure how one proves that any species more advanced than an amoeba is, or is not). How about passenger pigeons?
Are you seriously betting against the stupidity of thieves?
I dunno, those insurance industry and Wall St. types made out pretty good.
Oh, you mean blue-collar thieves.
I guarantee that ~90% of the users here have Gmail accounts.
Yup, 3 or 4. But that doesn't mean we use them as our primary mail accounts.
Gun control advocates love to indicate the 'logic' that less guns correlates to less homicides. But Logic, also requires that negation hold true. More guns = more homicides... right? However when gun sales have surged in the last 10 years, increasing nearly 40% in the last 10 years, homicides, especially gun related homicides, are down.
Maybe that's true. Maybe it includes all homicides, and maybe it omits 'justifiable' ones or 'accidental' ones. I don't know. But the criterion should be, gun related deaths. Is the number of deaths due to gunshot down?
I simply cannot imagine why anyone making 50K should even be asked to fill out a tax form, much less pay a dime of tax. I do not mean to belittle your income, but I have seen way too many welfare recipients make more than that.
Bullshit