I have no problem with putting, what, 20 square feet (maximum) of solar cells on the car roof. It'll trickle a little power into the batteries, and it's kinda cool, even if the weight and cost of the cells makes it impractical. But, a 200 square foot optical carport lens sounds ludicrous. Ugly, expensive, and requires an always-on, guaranteed 100% foolproof object avoidance system, so the car doesn't run over toys, pets, or toddlers as it shuffles back and forth under the lens.
You may say it's a "concept car" to promote solar power, but believe me - this stupidity isn't doing solar power any favors.
Correct, it's a feature. As I read it, the software was optimized for fast charging, a major customer concern. The patch doubtless increases charging time, but is more forgiving of non-optimal power delivery. A "charges slower / blows up more" selector switch would be nice, but not for public perception.
Are you talking about the eBooks thing? If so, it's a little more complex, and far less clear cut, than "guilty of price fixing." If not that, then what?
Note that the linked article didn't say Apple actually influenced the pricing up or down; just that they asked to review and approve the plans. I think there's a fair chance they were, as stated, trying to prevent gouging. I've worked for plenty of Apple authorized dealers; the profit margin (often less than 10%) on Apple hardware just isn't enough to allow discounts. The only real influence Apple can offer is co-op advertising. That is, you sell below a certain price and Apple doesn't reimburse you for promoting their products.
I suspect that advertising allowance (and it's influence) doesn't exist in Taiwan. So, they want to maintain some control, to avoid shady dealers (any of THOSE in Taiwan?) from sullying the brand.
Y'know, I'd assumed it was well known that every government program is named exact opposite of what it actually is, e.g. "Patriot Act." Misdirection of stupid people is de rigueur. Now, call it the "Financially Penalize Citizens For Not Buying a Retail Product Act" and I'm 100% behind it!
I mean, you folks at Slashdot should have called it the Affordable Care Act website then reminded us that it's also known as Obamacare. But to call it what it isn't in the first sentence of introduction is [very] unfortunate!
Disclaimer: I am neiter Democrat nor Republican.
Actually, I prefer "Colossal, Unconstitutional F*ck Up" as being completely descriptive... but I think we have far larger problems than nomenclature, don't you?
I live in a house with resistance electric heating; and I prefer the quality of light from incandescent lamps. So, I swap them twice a year. Winter, incandescent lamps approach 100% efficiency for me. I also use them outdoors, in places where I need instant start in cold weather, and in specialty uses, like my range hood with an inbuilt and CFL-incompatible dimmer. Point is, I do it intelligently. I love the way politicians think they know better than I do.
This is now managed with drugs, just like someone who lost their leg has their "balance issues" managed with a false limb. I don't think anyone would condone blocking entry to a country because that person had lost a leg in the past.
The decision was appalling, and the fact that it is clear that Canada is giving up private medical records to US authorities is disgusting.
A false limb? There could be a bomb in there! Oh, Noes! And what makes you think the Canadians "gave up" the records? More likely, the American just took them.
Step 1 : Dismantle the NSA, and file criminal charges against their leadership.
Step 2 : There is no step 2.
Sure there is, and more. Restoring trust at this point would entail the above, plus destroying the office facilities, computers, equipment, and network infrastructure used by the NSA. Followed by a decade or two of unlimited access and inspection of any similar government assets by a neutral outside party. Then, maybe, someone will trust USA, data, and security in the same sentence.
I can easily see pushing back the borders of the "secure" area. My girlfriend suggested making it the entire airport building complex, not just the terminals. Guards at every outside door, and security searches. Then again, people congregate at the shuttle bus stations in the parking lot... and there are a lot of people on the highways, a bomb or a shooter would be bad there, too. People often live in apartments, they have lots of residents, tightly packed. Probably best to have an armed guard search you as you get out of bed, thern drive you to the airport. Can't get any safer than that!
what could a TSA agent possibly do that would be justification for shooting?
Truly justified in a legal sense? Nothing. But if you're already twitchy and you've had say, a girlfriend or your mother, scanned/groped/made to partially undress, etc. it could easily set you off. Heck, 80% of what these guys do would, in another setting, get you slapped or punched in the mouth.
After hearing of the guy who was left alone because he wasn't working for the TSA, it seemed like this guy wasn't just out for a killing spree or some anti-government nut job, but had a very specific reason to hate the TSA.
I've been wondering that myself. The TSA, at least in their normal operation, is annoying but hardly monsters that deserve a vendetta. I'm guessing there's a specific event - something that happened to a loved one or family member, perhaps - that triggered this shooter. I'm also guessing we'll never hear about it; that would be just awful for security, to hear there might be some justification.
Just what we need, now we'll have a security checkpoint before our security checkpoint to prevent you from bringing a gun into the security checkpoint.
Frankly, that was my thought as well. The erratic movements at that stage of flight seem to be either a vehicle that's dangerously unstable, or a remote-controlled subscale model.
If they're still shut down April 15th, do I still have to...? Seriously, I haven't noticed a thing. I've always maintained 80% of what the federal government does, no sane person would want them to. What people WILL notice, come April 15th, is the fines for failure to hand over your soul to some insurance company. Once people start having to pay that, it'll all hit the fan and they'll have to eliminate that provision - effectively defunding Obamacare anyway. Smarter to get it out of the way now, before too much time and money are spent building the bureaucracy of a program that HAS to go away at some point, regardless.
To the guys complaining about slow starts at lights, perhaps you are the ones with an inflated sense of entitlement. Perhaps your honking at people who don't anticipate the green by a second and peel out in a cloud of burning rubber is the more annoying behavior. Because, guess what? Not everyone on the road in front of you is from your area or travels on your little habit trail from home-to-work-to-PigglyWiggly-to-home, and don't know every pothole and timing of every light intimately so they need to consult GPS.
No, sorry - you're wrong. No one is looking for JATO-assited takeoffs. If they're stopped at a light, they have all the time necessary to decide what direction they'll go in when it changes. Then when the light changes, they release one pedal and press another. That doesn't require familiarity with the area, analysis of road conditions, or research. Or if it DOES, they can darned well pull off and do the research.
So, apply the same logic as you would with drunk driving. Sure, these drivers were stopped at a red light, but would you expect the cop to look the other way if they were swigging from a bottle of vodka at the same red light ("well, the car isn't moving right now, so...")? He's right to read the law literally and also to assume that if they're texting at a red light, they likely won't stop texting once the car is moving..
(GRIN) Friend of mine actually went to jail for sleeping in his car, in his driveway, while drunk. His intention was to go out there (away from his wife) and sleep it off. But since he had the keys in his pocket, the potential for "drunk driving" existed; his intentions were irrelevant. That's far less clear that the probability of continuing to text after releasing the brake pedal, and he was tried convicted, and jailed for it.
That phrase is the quickest possible way to get most people to ignore your argument. We could guaranteed save ONE life - likely more than one - with a national 20 MPH speed limit. Do you want that? Like it or not, there's a measurable and finite financial value to a human life. Like everything else, a dollars-and-cents equation.
There is nothing short of an absolute, death-like issue that you need to be texting at a red light, or anywhere else while driving. Time and time again I've been behind people who were texting, the light turn greens and invariably I, or someone else, has to put on the horn to get them to pay attention to what they're doing as they're holding up traffic.
If you're that narcissistic or ADD that you think you need to be checking every ten seconds, go seek help.
Kudos to the cop enforcing the law.
I expected to read a lot of positive comments; I'm surprised how many people are criticizing this officer. I live in Pennsylvania, where (according to a previous poster) it's legal to text while stopped. I'd like to see that changed; I'm constantly infuriated by the time it takes for drivers to realize the light has changed, finish their text, and get moving. Many traffic lights are sensor operated; when there are no cars moving, it truncates the green. As a consequence, ONLY the car that delayed everyone gets through. I once sat at the light nearest my house through four changes, while only five cars got through. I've seen them sit there, texting, then dash through the already red light when they "wake up". This CAN'T be safe - and it's certainly not fair.
who the fuck was harmed? no one. interfering with school ops? when? how?
Indeed. Other than by the meddling actions of one parent, no one at the school would ever have known. No one was "terrorized" (other than this one student), the school was not interfered with. But NOW, we have an individual that know authority is capricious and unfair. Perhaps he will lash out...
The horrible transparency of the administration's agenda is staggering: fuck civil liberties; to hell with consumer rights; let's make civil infractions criminal offenses; let's use jackboot tactics to go after marijuana users; let's viciously and vindictively persecute those who try to expose government and corporate indiscretions by siccing our most petty, pea-brained people on them; let's lie, cheat, steal, bully, badger, and spy on everyone who could possibly be a threat. Essentially, the absolute primacy of government and corporate interests over individual rights. The only ones shittier are the Republicans, but not by much.
I honestly thought Obama would be different. Fuck me, right?!
So did I, for a while. Fun thing is, most of the people who voted for Obama still believe in him. According to them, the only reason he hasn't made the country a paradise is that "Congress won't let him".
For several years before war broke out, German airliners looked suspiciously un-airliner-like. Examples the HE-111 and FW-200. War breaks out, and surprise! Turns out with a few twists of a wrench they make much better bombers than they ever did airliners. Izumo may be a destroyer now, but I guarantee you there are plans - and possibly fittings already installed - for launch equipment.
Slashdot Mirror
What is this "virtually everybody" she is talking about?
Virtually everybody WHO MATTERS. If you're not on the committee, you don't matter; and if you disagree, you don't matter either.
"A lot of the privacy people, perhaps, don't understand that we still occupy the role of the Great Satan."
Maybe we shouldn't occupy that role?
After all, these politicians are well within the "three jumps" connecting them terrorists. Heck, they spend all day in meetings ABOUT terrorists!
I have no problem with putting, what, 20 square feet (maximum) of solar cells on the car roof. It'll trickle a little power into the batteries, and it's kinda cool, even if the weight and cost of the cells makes it impractical. But, a 200 square foot optical carport lens sounds ludicrous. Ugly, expensive, and requires an always-on, guaranteed 100% foolproof object avoidance system, so the car doesn't run over toys, pets, or toddlers as it shuffles back and forth under the lens.
You may say it's a "concept car" to promote solar power, but believe me - this stupidity isn't doing solar power any favors.
Correct, it's a feature. As I read it, the software was optimized for fast charging, a major customer concern. The patch doubtless increases charging time, but is more forgiving of non-optimal power delivery. A "charges slower / blows up more" selector switch would be nice, but not for public perception.
Convicted and fined in the USA for price fixing.
Are you talking about the eBooks thing? If so, it's a little more complex, and far less clear cut, than "guilty of price fixing." If not that, then what?
Note that the linked article didn't say Apple actually influenced the pricing up or down; just that they asked to review and approve the plans. I think there's a fair chance they were, as stated, trying to prevent gouging. I've worked for plenty of Apple authorized dealers; the profit margin (often less than 10%) on Apple hardware just isn't enough to allow discounts. The only real influence Apple can offer is co-op advertising. That is, you sell below a certain price and Apple doesn't reimburse you for promoting their products.
I suspect that advertising allowance (and it's influence) doesn't exist in Taiwan. So, they want to maintain some control, to avoid shady dealers (any of THOSE in Taiwan?) from sullying the brand.
Y'know, I'd assumed it was well known that every government program is named exact opposite of what it actually is, e.g. "Patriot Act." Misdirection of stupid people is de rigueur. Now, call it the "Financially Penalize Citizens For Not Buying a Retail Product Act" and I'm 100% behind it!
I mean, you folks at Slashdot should have called it the Affordable Care Act website then reminded us that it's also known as Obamacare. But to call it what it isn't in the first sentence of introduction is [very] unfortunate!
Disclaimer: I am neiter Democrat nor Republican.
Actually, I prefer "Colossal, Unconstitutional F*ck Up" as being completely descriptive... but I think we have far larger problems than nomenclature, don't you?
I live in a house with resistance electric heating; and I prefer the quality of light from incandescent lamps. So, I swap them twice a year. Winter, incandescent lamps approach 100% efficiency for me. I also use them outdoors, in places where I need instant start in cold weather, and in specialty uses, like my range hood with an inbuilt and CFL-incompatible dimmer. Point is, I do it intelligently. I love the way politicians think they know better than I do.
This is now managed with drugs, just like someone who lost their leg has their "balance issues" managed with a false limb. I don't think anyone would condone blocking entry to a country because that person had lost a leg in the past.
The decision was appalling, and the fact that it is clear that Canada is giving up private medical records to US authorities is disgusting.
A false limb? There could be a bomb in there! Oh, Noes! And what makes you think the Canadians "gave up" the records? More likely, the American just took them.
Step 1 : Dismantle the NSA, and file criminal charges against their leadership.
Step 2 : There is no step 2.
Sure there is, and more. Restoring trust at this point would entail the above, plus destroying the office facilities, computers, equipment, and network infrastructure used by the NSA. Followed by a decade or two of unlimited access and inspection of any similar government assets by a neutral outside party. Then, maybe, someone will trust USA, data, and security in the same sentence.
I can easily see pushing back the borders of the "secure" area. My girlfriend suggested making it the entire airport building complex, not just the terminals. Guards at every outside door, and security searches. Then again, people congregate at the shuttle bus stations in the parking lot... and there are a lot of people on the highways, a bomb or a shooter would be bad there, too. People often live in apartments, they have lots of residents, tightly packed. Probably best to have an armed guard search you as you get out of bed, thern drive you to the airport. Can't get any safer than that!
what could a TSA agent possibly do that would be justification for shooting?
Truly justified in a legal sense? Nothing. But if you're already twitchy and you've had say, a girlfriend or your mother, scanned/groped/made to partially undress, etc. it could easily set you off. Heck, 80% of what these guys do would, in another setting, get you slapped or punched in the mouth.
After hearing of the guy who was left alone because he wasn't working for the TSA, it seemed like this guy wasn't just out for a killing spree or some anti-government nut job, but had a very specific reason to hate the TSA.
I've been wondering that myself. The TSA, at least in their normal operation, is annoying but hardly monsters that deserve a vendetta. I'm guessing there's a specific event - something that happened to a loved one or family member, perhaps - that triggered this shooter. I'm also guessing we'll never hear about it; that would be just awful for security, to hear there might be some justification.
Just what we need, now we'll have a security checkpoint before our security checkpoint to prevent you from bringing a gun into the security checkpoint.
My girlfriend actually suggested that today.
Frankly, that was my thought as well. The erratic movements at that stage of flight seem to be either a vehicle that's dangerously unstable, or a remote-controlled subscale model.
If they're still shut down April 15th, do I still have to...? Seriously, I haven't noticed a thing. I've always maintained 80% of what the federal government does, no sane person would want them to. What people WILL notice, come April 15th, is the fines for failure to hand over your soul to some insurance company. Once people start having to pay that, it'll all hit the fan and they'll have to eliminate that provision - effectively defunding Obamacare anyway. Smarter to get it out of the way now, before too much time and money are spent building the bureaucracy of a program that HAS to go away at some point, regardless.
To the guys complaining about slow starts at lights, perhaps you are the ones with an inflated sense of entitlement. Perhaps your honking at people who don't anticipate the green by a second and peel out in a cloud of burning rubber is the more annoying behavior. Because, guess what? Not everyone on the road in front of you is from your area or travels on your little habit trail from home-to-work-to-PigglyWiggly-to-home, and don't know every pothole and timing of every light intimately so they need to consult GPS.
No, sorry - you're wrong. No one is looking for JATO-assited takeoffs. If they're stopped at a light, they have all the time necessary to decide what direction they'll go in when it changes. Then when the light changes, they release one pedal and press another. That doesn't require familiarity with the area, analysis of road conditions, or research. Or if it DOES, they can darned well pull off and do the research.
So, apply the same logic as you would with drunk driving. Sure, these drivers were stopped at a red light, but would you expect the cop to look the other way if they were swigging from a bottle of vodka at the same red light ("well, the car isn't moving right now, so...")? He's right to read the law literally and also to assume that if they're texting at a red light, they likely won't stop texting once the car is moving..
(GRIN) Friend of mine actually went to jail for sleeping in his car, in his driveway, while drunk. His intention was to go out there (away from his wife) and sleep it off. But since he had the keys in his pocket, the potential for "drunk driving" existed; his intentions were irrelevant. That's far less clear that the probability of continuing to text after releasing the brake pedal, and he was tried convicted, and jailed for it.
...but if it saves even ONE life, it's worth it.
That phrase is the quickest possible way to get most people to ignore your argument. We could guaranteed save ONE life - likely more than one - with a national 20 MPH speed limit. Do you want that? Like it or not, there's a measurable and finite financial value to a human life. Like everything else, a dollars-and-cents equation.
A cop doing their job.
There is nothing short of an absolute, death-like issue that you need to be texting at a red light, or anywhere else while driving. Time and time again I've been behind people who were texting, the light turn greens and invariably I, or someone else, has to put on the horn to get them to pay attention to what they're doing as they're holding up traffic.
If you're that narcissistic or ADD that you think you need to be checking every ten seconds, go seek help.
Kudos to the cop enforcing the law.
I expected to read a lot of positive comments; I'm surprised how many people are criticizing this officer. I live in Pennsylvania, where (according to a previous poster) it's legal to text while stopped. I'd like to see that changed; I'm constantly infuriated by the time it takes for drivers to realize the light has changed, finish their text, and get moving. Many traffic lights are sensor operated; when there are no cars moving, it truncates the green. As a consequence, ONLY the car that delayed everyone gets through. I once sat at the light nearest my house through four changes, while only five cars got through. I've seen them sit there, texting, then dash through the already red light when they "wake up". This CAN'T be safe - and it's certainly not fair.
who the fuck was harmed? no one. interfering with school ops? when? how?
Indeed. Other than by the meddling actions of one parent, no one at the school would ever have known. No one was "terrorized" (other than this one student), the school was not interfered with. But NOW, we have an individual that know authority is capricious and unfair. Perhaps he will lash out...
The horrible transparency of the administration's agenda is staggering: fuck civil liberties; to hell with consumer rights; let's make civil infractions criminal offenses; let's use jackboot tactics to go after marijuana users; let's viciously and vindictively persecute those who try to expose government and corporate indiscretions by siccing our most petty, pea-brained people on them; let's lie, cheat, steal, bully, badger, and spy on everyone who could possibly be a threat. Essentially, the absolute primacy of government and corporate interests over individual rights. The only ones shittier are the Republicans, but not by much.
I honestly thought Obama would be different. Fuck me, right?!
So did I, for a while. Fun thing is, most of the people who voted for Obama still believe in him. According to them, the only reason he hasn't made the country a paradise is that "Congress won't let him".
For several years before war broke out, German airliners looked suspiciously un-airliner-like. Examples the HE-111 and FW-200. War breaks out, and surprise! Turns out with a few twists of a wrench they make much better bombers than they ever did airliners. Izumo may be a destroyer now, but I guarantee you there are plans - and possibly fittings already installed - for launch equipment.