Trying to turn corners with one hand while fiddling with the gear shifter is easily as dangerous as a phone.
That's... hilarious. I suppose you've never driven a stick. When turning left on a very large intersection, do you actually stay in first gear the entire duration of your turn? I don't believe it -- most cars would be red-lining by that point.
Shifting into second during a turn is perfectly normal. If you can't figure out how to do it, it means you suck at driving stick, not that it's an unsafe thing to do.
I was once being driven by someone who turned her head directly at me and asked me "Why do you always criticize my driving?" *Boom* - she rearended the guy in front of her. Thank god it was low speed in a parking lot.
This bug has been around for a long time, but is only visible if you have large directories and delete files from them in between calls to readdir and seekdir.
But that's exactly my point, isn't it? The bug was only "visible" through its behavior, not its manifestation in code. The shallow bugs argument basically says that if enough people stare at the code, they will find the bugs. Clearly that did not happen here.
Whether the bug fix can propagate rapidly has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to disparage the concept of open source, I'm arguing that the shallow-bugs argument should be rejected.
The "Oh, shit" realization of the thief, probably followed by frantic thoughts of how he might go about flushing two widescreen TV's and assorted recreational electronics.
Only an idiot would panic. Just ditch the laptop. Good luck proving I stole your laptop when I don't *have* your laptop, and all you have is a picture of me that could have come from anywhere.
So even with a perfect eye tracker, you cannot pinpoint gaze location exactly just by measuring eye orientation.
And even if you could, your brain is also capable of "steering" the region of view which is currently being focused on (in a mental sense). This occurs without moving your eyes. Your sharpest vision is dead center in your field of vision, but it is easy to "pay attention" to things which are not at that location -- think peripheral vision.
For some people (me included), this mental activity manifests itself as a sense that one's eyes are moving even when they are not.
It sounds like this ruling makes it illegal for the company to run advertisements on any web advertiser which doesn't incorporate the concept of a "negative" keyword. So now the space of advertisers available to the company is limited by a technical detail. This seems wrong.
It's funny you use the term "orthogonal"... perpendicular, like two streets that intersect. Religion and science intersect exactly where religions make claims about the physical world.
Cute, but even if I was making a direct analogy to mathematical lines, which I wasn't, it's perfectly possible for two perpendicular lines not to intersect. (Add a third dimension.)
The physical truths of how the universe was brought into existence, whether that occurred as the result of divine action or not, are the domain of the physicist, by definition. That leaves the ineffable to religion. Some unclear thinkers exist in both realms who want to confuse certain things which aren't confusing, that's all.
we understand little about it and the math formula used will be a half guess. supercomputer or not, results will be speculative at best.
I don't think you understand how experiments work... If the results of the computations are something other than what is observed in nature, then the methods and/or equations are proven wrong. That is most certainly a NON-speculative result.
Just because the model shows a burst of star stuff blowing out this way or that way in some particular configuration doesn't mean that scientists will leap up from their chairs and say "Stars do this, and we've proven it."
You can never know if your models are correct. All you can do is continually test them and try to prove them wrong. Maxwell's equations have not been proven to be correct -- they've just never been shown to be wrong. This simulation is just a step on the path of evidence.
Explaining that you adhere to the Big Bang theory as some kind of consequence of your atheism is a non sequitur. What does religious belief have to do with acceptance of a physical theory? Do you also explain electromagnetism to your daughter by pointing out that you are non-religious?
If anything this encourages the sort of illogical thinking which science tries to expose and eliminate. Religion and science are orthogonal to each other, as has been multiply observed for centuries by both scientists and religious leaders (the efforts of radicals on both sides to exploit it for political gains notwithstanding -- some people will fall for anything).
Oregon. It was a two year, incremental project. The first year the credits paid for the panels, and I ran off a battery system for the year. The next year paid for the grid-tie system. I did have to spend money out of pocket, but it was reimbursed. Labor costs are not reimbursed, but we did the panel installation ourselves. The grid-tie installation had to be done by contractors.
The Oregon tax credit allows you to continue adding panels on a yearly basis, at a reimbursement rate of up up to $3.00 per watt. I'm not sure you can get panels that cheap these days. We managed to do it by literally ordering a semi-truck full of them (a bunch of us all did this at the same time).
There is a cap of $2000 (or is it $3000?) per year.
Bloody Americans:-)
You need to keep going. You guys can get (if you're a farmer or remote business) Federal grants and Federal financing for a 15 Kw wind turbine.
I'm definitely going to continue. I can also get credit for solar hot water -- that's next. I do like the idea of being able to run off batteries in the event of a grid outage but that would require me to get a licensed contractor to install yet a THIRD huge switch (the side of my house already looks like Dr. Frankenstein's lab) to switch the panels from the grid-tie inverter over to a charge controller, and I'd have to buy a second (non-grid-tie) inverter, and there would probably be yet a fourth switch somewhere near the breaker panel to switch out the grid and switch in the inverter. The power doesn't go out often enough for that to be worth it. Yet.
I already have to have all kinds of labels on everything which clearly spell out that there are TWO sources of power present in the breaker panel, so that some hapless electrician doesn't waste himself.
Here in Canada we can get sales tax refunded. Woopee.
You get your sales tax on the purchase of the equipment refunded, or you get all sales tax for the entire year refunded?;) Honestly, I'm not sure I agree with the subsidies myself, but as a selfish human I am more than willing to take advantage of them as long as they are available.
Oh, oh, so you want to spend $2000 to share wires and have it be a hybrid grid/solar system. Well, you could do that.
I spent exactly $0 for the entire project, due to state tax credits, but I do get your point. For a smaller installation the price of the inverter may be prohibitive. But since I could get it free, I did.
The OP doesbn't need a grid tie invertor. That's for selling excess power back to the power company.
No, you need one if you want your entire house rigged for solar power. Being able to sell excess power back to the power company is just a side-effect. I started with a battery/inverter based system, and I hated it, so I went whole-house. You simply need a grid-tie inverter for that, if you aren't making enough power on your own to run your entire house.
I've never even come close to having an excess of power to sell back to the power company. That wasn't the goal of the project.
You know while on the surface this sounds funny, I can't help but think that this technology combined with attempts of AI research, could possibly just lead to a Borg / Replicator / Terminator situation.
You're right -- I mean, imagine if the entire surface of the earth was covered in self-replicating, intelligent entities. There would be large ones, small ones, ones with huge, knife-like protrusions sticking out from vice-like clamping mechanisms. These "animated" entities could even, over time, evolve into more and more dangerous forms.
Due to their animate nature, I propose we call these extremely super-dangerous things "animals." And let us pray to God that they never come to be.
Insurance is not always a good idea. Insurance companies need to make money and need to pay overhead (e.g. administration, advertising etc) in addition to paying out money if the insured claim benefits.
In my case, the insurance is offered through a private climbing association, and is completely member-supported, so there's not much overhead at all. Membership in our organization automatically implies this insurance -- it's paid for as part of our membership dues. (And yes, the association is huge enough to be able to support that)
I think there's something about this story we don't know. Why did they look so long? Why were they so invested? After the first five days in that kind of terrain, hopes of survival for anyone who suffered a significant injury in a plane crash drop basically to zero. I almost wonder if somebody was pressuring S&R to continue an extremely expensive search when it was already clear it was hopeless.
So if they are going to charge me directly for the use of state services, why am i still paying taxes?
A lot of people, many of them wilderness buffs themselves, think it's unfair. I'm a climber and I think it's unfair. Climbing mountains is an inherently risky behavior with no objective payoff (although some routes are far safer than others) and it is counterproductive to piss off the taxpayers -- they are itching to pass laws banning climbing altogether. I don't want that to happen. Therefore I carry rescue insurance in the event I require a rescue.
Similarly, a person who commonly flies, solo, over mountainous terrain should probably have some form of insurance. Especially somebody as well-funded as Bill Fossett.
In the not too distant past a helicopter was downed on Mt. Hood during a rescue of 911 firefighters who were on a risky elective trek.
Please get the facts straight. Climbing the standard (Southern) Hood route is not a "risky trek." This is the most climbed mountaineering route in the United States, with over 100,000 people climbing per year. The relative risk is very low.
What was risky was sending a Blackhawk helicopter into mountainous conditions where the pilot was not prepared. I don't blame the pilot, or the mountaineers, I do blame the decision makers who decided that sending the helicopter was worth the risk.
I climb Northwest volcanoes. Stating that a basic South route climb of Hood is "risky" is something I can't even properly respond to. The idiot who fell into the St. Helens crater a few weeks ago? Now THAT'S a case of sheer stupidity.
Having said all this, I own mountain rescue insurance, and I think that's a good model for handling these situations. I agree with you that taxpayers should not necessarily be paying for the deliberate choices of people who take risks. Just please keep the level of risk in perspective, okay?
Slashdot Mirror
(I've never had a false positive).
How would you know?
It's part of your job to get "bitched at." Try sucking it up and being a professional. These are complaints, not idiots bitching you out.
Trying to turn corners with one hand while fiddling with the gear shifter is easily as dangerous as a phone.
That's... hilarious. I suppose you've never driven a stick. When turning left on a very large intersection, do you actually stay in first gear the entire duration of your turn? I don't believe it -- most cars would be red-lining by that point.
Shifting into second during a turn is perfectly normal. If you can't figure out how to do it, it means you suck at driving stick, not that it's an unsafe thing to do.
I was once being driven by someone who turned her head directly at me and asked me "Why do you always criticize my driving?" *Boom* - she rearended the guy in front of her. Thank god it was low speed in a parking lot.
And??! Please finish the story..
"Many-eyes-shallow-bugs" == absolute statement "Many-eyes-yet-bug-wasn't-found" == clear contradiction of absolute statement.
This bug has been around for a long time, but is only visible if you have large directories and delete files from them in between calls to readdir and seekdir.
But that's exactly my point, isn't it? The bug was only "visible" through its behavior, not its manifestation in code. The shallow bugs argument basically says that if enough people stare at the code, they will find the bugs. Clearly that did not happen here.
Whether the bug fix can propagate rapidly has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to disparage the concept of open source, I'm arguing that the shallow-bugs argument should be rejected.
The "Oh, shit" realization of the thief, probably followed by frantic thoughts of how he might go about flushing two widescreen TV's and assorted recreational electronics.
Only an idiot would panic. Just ditch the laptop. Good luck proving I stole your laptop when I don't *have* your laptop, and all you have is a picture of me that could have come from anywhere.
My ass. There are arguments for open source. The shallow bugs argument is not one of them.
Wouldn't that still require proving that the person violated the rule? Or is this a legal back door allowing judges to summarily punish people?
Why is it necessary to bar a person from violating a rule? Doesn't the very existence of the rule already imply it should not be violated?
So even with a perfect eye tracker, you cannot pinpoint gaze location exactly just by measuring eye orientation.
And even if you could, your brain is also capable of "steering" the region of view which is currently being focused on (in a mental sense). This occurs without moving your eyes. Your sharpest vision is dead center in your field of vision, but it is easy to "pay attention" to things which are not at that location -- think peripheral vision.
For some people (me included), this mental activity manifests itself as a sense that one's eyes are moving even when they are not.
It sounds like this ruling makes it illegal for the company to run advertisements on any web advertiser which doesn't incorporate the concept of a "negative" keyword. So now the space of advertisers available to the company is limited by a technical detail. This seems wrong.
It's funny you use the term "orthogonal"... perpendicular, like two streets that intersect. Religion and science intersect exactly where religions make claims about the physical world.
Cute, but even if I was making a direct analogy to mathematical lines, which I wasn't, it's perfectly possible for two perpendicular lines not to intersect. (Add a third dimension.)
The physical truths of how the universe was brought into existence, whether that occurred as the result of divine action or not, are the domain of the physicist, by definition. That leaves the ineffable to religion. Some unclear thinkers exist in both realms who want to confuse certain things which aren't confusing, that's all.
"I don't think you understand how experiments work" sounds like you are making an assumption as well
I'm not assuming anything. I've formed a model based on the evidence.
A processor-hour is a single processor being utilized for an hour. This supercomputer has a lot of processors (as do all supercomputers, really).
we understand little about it and the math formula used will be a half guess. supercomputer or not, results will be speculative at best.
I don't think you understand how experiments work... If the results of the computations are something other than what is observed in nature, then the methods and/or equations are proven wrong. That is most certainly a NON-speculative result.
Just because the model shows a burst of star stuff blowing out this way or that way in some particular configuration doesn't mean that scientists will leap up from their chairs and say "Stars do this, and we've proven it."
You can never know if your models are correct. All you can do is continually test them and try to prove them wrong. Maxwell's equations have not been proven to be correct -- they've just never been shown to be wrong. This simulation is just a step on the path of evidence.
Explaining that you adhere to the Big Bang theory as some kind of consequence of your atheism is a non sequitur. What does religious belief have to do with acceptance of a physical theory? Do you also explain electromagnetism to your daughter by pointing out that you are non-religious?
If anything this encourages the sort of illogical thinking which science tries to expose and eliminate. Religion and science are orthogonal to each other, as has been multiply observed for centuries by both scientists and religious leaders (the efforts of radicals on both sides to exploit it for political gains notwithstanding -- some people will fall for anything).
Oregon. It was a two year, incremental project. The first year the credits paid for the panels, and I ran off a battery system for the year. The next year paid for the grid-tie system. I did have to spend money out of pocket, but it was reimbursed. Labor costs are not reimbursed, but we did the panel installation ourselves. The grid-tie installation had to be done by contractors.
The Oregon tax credit allows you to continue adding panels on a yearly basis, at a reimbursement rate of up up to $3.00 per watt. I'm not sure you can get panels that cheap these days. We managed to do it by literally ordering a semi-truck full of them (a bunch of us all did this at the same time).
There is a cap of $2000 (or is it $3000?) per year.
Bloody Americans :-)
You need to keep going. You guys can get (if you're a farmer or remote business) Federal grants and Federal financing for a 15 Kw wind turbine.
I'm definitely going to continue. I can also get credit for solar hot water -- that's next. I do like the idea of being able to run off batteries in the event of a grid outage but that would require me to get a licensed contractor to install yet a THIRD huge switch (the side of my house already looks like Dr. Frankenstein's lab) to switch the panels from the grid-tie inverter over to a charge controller, and I'd have to buy a second (non-grid-tie) inverter, and there would probably be yet a fourth switch somewhere near the breaker panel to switch out the grid and switch in the inverter. The power doesn't go out often enough for that to be worth it. Yet.
I already have to have all kinds of labels on everything which clearly spell out that there are TWO sources of power present in the breaker panel, so that some hapless electrician doesn't waste himself.
Here in Canada we can get sales tax refunded. Woopee.
You get your sales tax on the purchase of the equipment refunded, or you get all sales tax for the entire year refunded? ;) Honestly, I'm not sure I agree with the subsidies myself, but as a selfish human I am more than willing to take advantage of them as long as they are available.
Oh, oh, so you want to spend $2000 to share wires and have it be a hybrid grid/solar system. Well, you could do that.
I spent exactly $0 for the entire project, due to state tax credits, but I do get your point. For a smaller installation the price of the inverter may be prohibitive. But since I could get it free, I did.
The OP doesbn't need a grid tie invertor. That's for selling excess power back to the power company.
No, you need one if you want your entire house rigged for solar power. Being able to sell excess power back to the power company is just a side-effect. I started with a battery/inverter based system, and I hated it, so I went whole-house. You simply need a grid-tie inverter for that, if you aren't making enough power on your own to run your entire house.
I've never even come close to having an excess of power to sell back to the power company. That wasn't the goal of the project.
You know while on the surface this sounds funny, I can't help but think that this technology combined with attempts of AI research, could possibly just lead to a Borg / Replicator / Terminator situation.
You're right -- I mean, imagine if the entire surface of the earth was covered in self-replicating, intelligent entities. There would be large ones, small ones, ones with huge, knife-like protrusions sticking out from vice-like clamping mechanisms. These "animated" entities could even, over time, evolve into more and more dangerous forms.
Due to their animate nature, I propose we call these extremely super-dangerous things "animals." And let us pray to God that they never come to be.
Insurance is not always a good idea. Insurance companies need to make money and need to pay overhead (e.g. administration, advertising etc) in addition to paying out money if the insured claim benefits.
In my case, the insurance is offered through a private climbing association, and is completely member-supported, so there's not much overhead at all. Membership in our organization automatically implies this insurance -- it's paid for as part of our membership dues. (And yes, the association is huge enough to be able to support that)
I think there's something about this story we don't know. Why did they look so long? Why were they so invested? After the first five days in that kind of terrain, hopes of survival for anyone who suffered a significant injury in a plane crash drop basically to zero. I almost wonder if somebody was pressuring S&R to continue an extremely expensive search when it was already clear it was hopeless.
So if they are going to charge me directly for the use of state services, why am i still paying taxes?
A lot of people, many of them wilderness buffs themselves, think it's unfair. I'm a climber and I think it's unfair. Climbing mountains is an inherently risky behavior with no objective payoff (although some routes are far safer than others) and it is counterproductive to piss off the taxpayers -- they are itching to pass laws banning climbing altogether. I don't want that to happen. Therefore I carry rescue insurance in the event I require a rescue.
Similarly, a person who commonly flies, solo, over mountainous terrain should probably have some form of insurance. Especially somebody as well-funded as Bill Fossett.
See you on the mountain!
In the not too distant past a helicopter was downed on Mt. Hood during a rescue of 911 firefighters who were on a risky elective trek.
Please get the facts straight. Climbing the standard (Southern) Hood route is not a "risky trek." This is the most climbed mountaineering route in the United States, with over 100,000 people climbing per year. The relative risk is very low.
What was risky was sending a Blackhawk helicopter into mountainous conditions where the pilot was not prepared. I don't blame the pilot, or the mountaineers, I do blame the decision makers who decided that sending the helicopter was worth the risk.
I climb Northwest volcanoes. Stating that a basic South route climb of Hood is "risky" is something I can't even properly respond to. The idiot who fell into the St. Helens crater a few weeks ago? Now THAT'S a case of sheer stupidity.
Having said all this, I own mountain rescue insurance, and I think that's a good model for handling these situations. I agree with you that taxpayers should not necessarily be paying for the deliberate choices of people who take risks. Just please keep the level of risk in perspective, okay?