As usual, you have politicians and vested interests talking out of their arse
Actually, this is just the opposite. The car industry in Europe is heavily leveraged towards diesel. European politicians don't want to put their domestic car makers out of work. They are addressing this problem DESPITE their vested interests, because it's gotten THAT BAD. You have all those historic landmarks covered in soot and requiring tremendous maintenance from the damage from the air, alone.
Banning diesel cars will do nothing for this
On the contrary, it will do a huge amount.
We're likely to hear more anti-diesel rhetoric in the future.
Yes you are, because diesel is a huge mess. Europe made the wrong decision, has been paying for it, and that will get worse, not better, the longer this nonsense continues.
Because A) you don't need javascript to read the content on the page, and B) Javascript is frequently used to defeat ad blockers, can easily blank pages, etc. Many sites work better with javascript disabled. This is very basic stuff.
And here I thought/. was a tech site, with an audience to match. Guess it's not, anymore.
self-sustaining other planets and that's just plain old science fiction.
EVERYTHING is science fiction... until we do it.
We absolutely have all the technology needed. Here on Earth we have greenhouses, hydroponics, and even indoor growing with 100% artificial illumination.
we now chase after cows, pigs, and chickens.
No. about 1% of people do that. The other 99% will NEVER chase prey. It bears no resemblance to primitive hunting, either.
through technology we put him in the air for a short period of time at a great cost of natural resources.
The great cost is only because people want speed. Balloons and similar have minimal cost, will stay aloft for very long periods, but are very slow, so almost nobody wants them.
Humans evolved to chase antelope until they collapse of heat exhaustion. Agriculture, animal domestication, urbanization, mechanization, electrification, etc., ALL happened with minimal, if any, biological/evolutionary changes to our species. Yet, there's widespread consensus that humans are vastly better-off with this modern developments, that we were NOT "evolved" for...
Honestly, all you're saying is: "If man were meant to fly, he would have been born with wings", applied instead to space travel, interplanetary colonization, etc.
It should go without saying that humanity is too valuable to be left all in one easily-damaged basket. At the very least, we should develop self-sustainable colonies on other planets, in the event of global catastrophe on Earth. Eventually, other planets could become more desirable than the Earth... planets with more comfortable temperatures, fewer natural disasters, more available land area, etc.
He can dispute the charges, but unless he can demonstrate fraud/theft the CC company may deny the dispute.
No. US law is very clear. If he quickly disputes the charges, they must immediately refund his money. Then the onus is on the card issuer to prove that he is lying and had authorized the charges. And if they make such a claim, there are places to appeal.
You are not responsible for any charges that you did not explicitly authorize. You can do idiotic things like post your credit card number on the internet, and you're still not responsible for the charges. If you physically lose your card, or don't quickly report the fraud after you see it on your statement, there may be a small fee, but you'll still get most of your money refunded.
This is the ONLY way it can work. The credit card issuers could pretty easily implement extremely good security measures. They choose not to do so, because it would cost them more than the current level of fraud does. So the burden of fraud on the systems they designed not to be very secure, rightly belongs with them.
Then the Forbes site works, even with adblock enabled. Seems to need javascript, though, at least the way NoScript disables it doesn't work out well...
No matter how much crapware they inject, no matter how aggressively they insist on interfering with ad blockers, sites still MUST be indexable by Google (whose web spiders don't really do javascript) or they might as not even have a web presence...
In fact, Forbes should get nailed and demoted by Google for failing to follow the fundamental rule that users must get the same content that web spiders do.
There's a much simpler and more universal workaround...
No matter how much javascript crapware they inject, no matter how aggressively they interfere with ad blockers, sites still MUST be indexable by Google (whose web spiders don't even do javascript) or they might as not even have a web presence.
So any site, no matter how broken, will invariable come up fine if you search for the URL prefixed with "cache:" in a Google search. That will >get you the locally stored version they indexed in the first place. Always a 100% working version of the page, without acquiescing to the site's crazy demands for insecure browser behavior.
Bruce Perens.... created The Open Source Definition and published the first formal announcement and manifesto of open source. He co-founded the Open Source Initiative (OSI) with Eric S. Raymond.
Note the second name in there... I'm pretty sure ESR would completely disagree with Bruce on this topic. ESR is routinely complaining about SJWs conspiring to harm open source projects. Recently:
the energy density of Li-on batteries is very low compared to gasoline (44.4 mj/kg for gasversus.36-.875 mj/kg for battery).
This is a nonsense comparison, based on theoretical numbers which conveniently ignore the very low efficiency of converting gasoline into movement, and the substantial weight, maintenance, etc., required to do so.
If you compare complete systems, like yard equipment, automobiles, etc., it's easy to see that batteries are (at worst) within an order of magnitude of the capabilities of gasoline, and more importantly, quickly closing that gap and likely to eventually surpass the older technology in the coming years.
First, it's easy to opportunistically refuel a gasoline powered engine. And fast.
Show me a $30 device which creates gasoline whenever it happens to be in the sun, and will continue to silently operate for decades. How about one that'll generate gasoline from wind, water, temperature differences, or any other form of energy.
And how much gasoline can you pump through a simple, passive, cheap and maintenance free 1" diameter pipeline that spans 1,000 km, and can be installed in the air, supported by poles?
The final stage is not quite as "fast", but it doesn't need to be, with all those other advantages... It absolutely blows past your concept of what is "easy".
Don't you remember all the different chargers? I love being able to use any micro USB charger with any phone or camera.
Are you kidding? Micro-USB is a nightmare!
Let's see, this USB port is 7V 500mAH, sounds slow... This one is a whopping 3A! and yet, hmm, my phone is only slow-charging... Charges twice as fast on the that other 1A charger. And the Motorola chargers are often 750mAH, either single or even dual-port! Life sure would be boring without such new and interesting surprises!
Go buy a basket full of generic cigarette-lighter plug USB phone chargers for your car, then turn on navigation for a few hours, and try each of the chargers... You can best your phone's battery will be draining, rather than charging, on most of them!
And how often are we all replacing the flimsy micro-USB cables? I can't remember EVER having a simple barrel connector getting damaged from regular use...
Whatever happens, we need something far better than the current hode-podge of micro-USB.
30 days? A lot of searches have lasted a lot longer.
Very few searches last that long, and power to the FDR pretty much only helps in large water body crashes. If it's in a field somewhere, you just go around with a metal detector until you find something. Even underwater, you're assuming only power is running out, when a high-speed crash could damage the pinger, and being buried under debris could obscure and render it ineffective.
Doubling the capacity of the batteries would add maybe $20 to the cost of each FDR... You can't even imagine how much it would cost to include a plutonium-238 power generator in each. I'll ballpark it on the order of 1 million dollars, per.
Terrible idea. First, flight data recorders have easy access to ample power (from the aircraft) for 99.9% of their life... It's only that 0.1% of the time that batteries would have to kick-in, and rechargeable NiMH work great and can last for decades in such an easy duty-cycle.
Secondly, an RTG costs more than your HOUSE, and is huge.
Third, PU-238 doesn't make electricity, just heat, so you need a full heat engine in there, somewhere. A simple Peltier works, but they're maybe 90% efficient, so you're talking extremely high temperatures to generate a useful amount of electricity, which need to be conducted out somewhere. That means your iPhone or flight data recorder power by PU-238 will have to run several-hundred degrees hotter than you'd find comfortable...
The national rate for reported "property-damage-only crashes" is about 0.3 per 100,000 miles driven, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Google's 11 accidents over 1.7 million miles would work out to 0.6 per 100,000 http://www.chicagotribune.com/...
The other cars in the automation test drive 70mph on the freeways commonly.
Yes, yes, fine... MOST of the cars, and MOST of the miles driven are very low speed, at or below 25MPH.
During the day and in fair weather, google's cars are already safer than humans.
That's the company line... blaming humans for all the accidents... But Google self-driving cars have had a higher-than-average accident rate for the number of miles driven, which suggests *something* is going wrong.
In addition, Google self-driving cars are limited to 25MPH, max, like NEVs/golf-carts. Obviously this isn't comparable to just about any human driver's duty-cycle, and means self-driving cars are only being tested in slower and lower-risk scenarios thus far.
That's a good write-up, but I immediately notice you left out a LOT of intermediate phone company names...
You can't talk about the history of AT&T Mobility without mentioning SBC and Cingular. Or discuss the history of Verizon and Sprint without mentioning they were strangely BOTH formed from GTE.
I found a much more complete history of all the crazy splits and (mostly-) mergers here:
In terms of knowing why the bridge failed and how to not have a future one fail in the same manner, the difference between those two is quite important.
I'm going to say: No
First of all... If you design a bridge that collapses, nobody is going to care when you tell them, "Yeah, but it wasn't destroyed by wind-driven amplification of the torsional oscillation! We're professionals. We had that issue covered!"
Second... The fix for both is EXACTLY the same. You need to stiffen the structure and dampen any movement.
Funny part: if you subtract the current value of the Alibaba shares still owned by Yahoo, the rest of Yahoo is valued at roughly -$1.2B...
That's because they *MIGHT* have to pay considerably more than $1.2B in US taxes (more like $16B) when they sell/convert those shares.
That's probably where this attack on Mayer is coming from... They all have their own ideas on what legal maneuvers the business should take to avoid the billions in taxes, and Mayer is going to be on the wrong side of one group or another.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, this is just the opposite. The car industry in Europe is heavily leveraged towards diesel. European politicians don't want to put their domestic car makers out of work. They are addressing this problem DESPITE their vested interests, because it's gotten THAT BAD. You have all those historic landmarks covered in soot and requiring tremendous maintenance from the damage from the air, alone.
On the contrary, it will do a huge amount.
Yes you are, because diesel is a huge mess. Europe made the wrong decision, has been paying for it, and that will get worse, not better, the longer this nonsense continues.
Because A) you don't need javascript to read the content on the page, and B) Javascript is frequently used to defeat ad blockers, can easily blank pages, etc. Many sites work better with javascript disabled. This is very basic stuff.
And here I thought /. was a tech site, with an audience to match. Guess it's not, anymore.
EVERYTHING is science fiction... until we do it.
We absolutely have all the technology needed. Here on Earth we have greenhouses, hydroponics, and even indoor growing with 100% artificial illumination.
No. about 1% of people do that. The other 99% will NEVER chase prey. It bears no resemblance to primitive hunting, either.
The great cost is only because people want speed. Balloons and similar have minimal cost, will stay aloft for very long periods, but are very slow, so almost nobody wants them.
Humans evolved to chase antelope until they collapse of heat exhaustion. Agriculture, animal domestication, urbanization, mechanization, electrification, etc., ALL happened with minimal, if any, biological/evolutionary changes to our species. Yet, there's widespread consensus that humans are vastly better-off with this modern developments, that we were NOT "evolved" for...
Honestly, all you're saying is: "If man were meant to fly, he would have been born with wings", applied instead to space travel, interplanetary colonization, etc.
It should go without saying that humanity is too valuable to be left all in one easily-damaged basket. At the very least, we should develop self-sustainable colonies on other planets, in the event of global catastrophe on Earth. Eventually, other planets could become more desirable than the Earth... planets with more comfortable temperatures, fewer natural disasters, more available land area, etc.
No. US law is very clear. If he quickly disputes the charges, they must immediately refund his money. Then the onus is on the card issuer to prove that he is lying and had authorized the charges. And if they make such a claim, there are places to appeal.
You are not responsible for any charges that you did not explicitly authorize. You can do idiotic things like post your credit card number on the internet, and you're still not responsible for the charges. If you physically lose your card, or don't quickly report the fraud after you see it on your statement, there may be a small fee, but you'll still get most of your money refunded.
This is the ONLY way it can work. The credit card issuers could pretty easily implement extremely good security measures. They choose not to do so, because it would cost them more than the current level of fraud does. So the burden of fraud on the systems they designed not to be very secure, rightly belongs with them.
Try disabling javascript in Opera & IE. I'm betting that'll fix it.
You're not very good at reading... This is already Google's policy. They are very much existent.
Just set your user agent to: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; http://www.google.com/bot.html)
Then the Forbes site works, even with adblock enabled. Seems to need javascript, though, at least the way NoScript disables it doesn't work out well...
WORKING LINK: http://webcache.googleusercont...
No matter how much crapware they inject, no matter how aggressively they insist on interfering with ad blockers, sites still MUST be indexable by Google (whose web spiders don't really do javascript) or they might as not even have a web presence...
So any site, no matter how broken, will invariable look fine in the Google cache. Just do a Google search for the URL prefixed with cache:. That will get you the locally stored version they indexed in the first place. Always a 100% working version of the page, without acquiescing to the site's crazy demands for insecure browser behavior.
In fact, Forbes should get nailed and demoted by Google for failing to follow the fundamental rule that users must get the same content that web spiders do.
There's a much simpler and more universal workaround...
No matter how much javascript crapware they inject, no matter how aggressively they interfere with ad blockers, sites still MUST be indexable by Google (whose web spiders don't even do javascript) or they might as not even have a web presence.
So any site, no matter how broken, will invariable come up fine if you search for the URL prefixed with "cache:" in a Google search. That will >get you the locally stored version they indexed in the first place. Always a 100% working version of the page, without acquiescing to the site's crazy demands for insecure browser behavior.
You can just as easily say the same thing about Bruce Perens. That was my point.
Note the second name in there... I'm pretty sure ESR would completely disagree with Bruce on this topic. ESR is routinely complaining about SJWs conspiring to harm open source projects. Recently:
http://www.infoworld.com/artic...
So, if "Credentials" matter to you, that makes it a wash. It's a logical fallacy, anyhow.
This is a nonsense comparison, based on theoretical numbers which conveniently ignore the very low efficiency of converting gasoline into movement, and the substantial weight, maintenance, etc., required to do so.
If you compare complete systems, like yard equipment, automobiles, etc., it's easy to see that batteries are (at worst) within an order of magnitude of the capabilities of gasoline, and more importantly, quickly closing that gap and likely to eventually surpass the older technology in the coming years.
Show me a $30 device which creates gasoline whenever it happens to be in the sun, and will continue to silently operate for decades. How about one that'll generate gasoline from wind, water, temperature differences, or any other form of energy.
And how much gasoline can you pump through a simple, passive, cheap and maintenance free 1" diameter pipeline that spans 1,000 km, and can be installed in the air, supported by poles?
The final stage is not quite as "fast", but it doesn't need to be, with all those other advantages... It absolutely blows past your concept of what is "easy".
Are you kidding? Micro-USB is a nightmare!
Let's see, this USB port is 7V 500mAH, sounds slow... This one is a whopping 3A! and yet, hmm, my phone is only slow-charging... Charges twice as fast on the that other 1A charger. And the Motorola chargers are often 750mAH, either single or even dual-port! Life sure would be boring without such new and interesting surprises!
Go buy a basket full of generic cigarette-lighter plug USB phone chargers for your car, then turn on navigation for a few hours, and try each of the chargers... You can best your phone's battery will be draining, rather than charging, on most of them!
And how often are we all replacing the flimsy micro-USB cables? I can't remember EVER having a simple barrel connector getting damaged from regular use...
Whatever happens, we need something far better than the current hode-podge of micro-USB.
Very few searches last that long, and power to the FDR pretty much only helps in large water body crashes. If it's in a field somewhere, you just go around with a metal detector until you find something. Even underwater, you're assuming only power is running out, when a high-speed crash could damage the pinger, and being buried under debris could obscure and render it ineffective.
Doubling the capacity of the batteries would add maybe $20 to the cost of each FDR... You can't even imagine how much it would cost to include a plutonium-238 power generator in each. I'll ballpark it on the order of 1 million dollars, per.
Same reason you don't call Germany "Deutschland"...
But I bet Disney already green-lighted it...
Ugg... Peltiers are about 10% efficient, meaning you'll need to dump 90% of the heat coming out of the PU-238...
Stupid 4+ minute wait.
Terrible idea. First, flight data recorders have easy access to ample power (from the aircraft) for 99.9% of their life... It's only that 0.1% of the time that batteries would have to kick-in, and rechargeable NiMH work great and can last for decades in such an easy duty-cycle.
Secondly, an RTG costs more than your HOUSE, and is huge.
Third, PU-238 doesn't make electricity, just heat, so you need a full heat engine in there, somewhere. A simple Peltier works, but they're maybe 90% efficient, so you're talking extremely high temperatures to generate a useful amount of electricity, which need to be conducted out somewhere. That means your iPhone or flight data recorder power by PU-238 will have to run several-hundred degrees hotter than you'd find comfortable...
Bull:
The national rate for reported "property-damage-only crashes" is about 0.3 per 100,000 miles driven, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Google's 11 accidents over 1.7 million miles would work out to 0.6 per 100,000
http://www.chicagotribune.com/...
Yes, yes, fine... MOST of the cars, and MOST of the miles driven are very low speed, at or below 25MPH.
That's the company line... blaming humans for all the accidents... But Google self-driving cars have had a higher-than-average accident rate for the number of miles driven, which suggests *something* is going wrong.
In addition, Google self-driving cars are limited to 25MPH, max, like NEVs/golf-carts. Obviously this isn't comparable to just about any human driver's duty-cycle, and means self-driving cars are only being tested in slower and lower-risk scenarios thus far.
That's a good write-up, but I immediately notice you left out a LOT of intermediate phone company names...
You can't talk about the history of AT&T Mobility without mentioning SBC and Cingular. Or discuss the history of Verizon and Sprint without mentioning they were strangely BOTH formed from GTE.
I found a much more complete history of all the crazy splits and (mostly-) mergers here:
http://www.technologizer.com/2...
I'm going to say: No
First of all... If you design a bridge that collapses, nobody is going to care when you tell them, "Yeah, but it wasn't destroyed by wind-driven amplification of the torsional oscillation! We're professionals. We had that issue covered!"
Second... The fix for both is EXACTLY the same. You need to stiffen the structure and dampen any movement.
Are they all running for president right now, too?
That's because they *MIGHT* have to pay considerably more than $1.2B in US taxes (more like $16B) when they sell/convert those shares.
That's probably where this attack on Mayer is coming from... They all have their own ideas on what legal maneuvers the business should take to avoid the billions in taxes, and Mayer is going to be on the wrong side of one group or another.