It takes effort to limit your energy consumption. Especially when it comes to vehicles. Get off your asses and stand at a bus stop instead, bike to work, carpool if you have to.
Lead by example and lay down the groundwork for others to follow in your footsteps.
Fight to the bitter end with your dollar. Don't be complacent.
Seriously. The only reason this shit is perpetuating is because of the choices that you're making right now.
If only they used that system to fight the real evils! like to spot and take away your car keys when you're eating and driving at the same time. or maybe just to take away your food when you're somewhere on your way to heart disease. i hear if your skin's black there's a correlation to you having marijuana in your possession. fucking hedons
I may be buying a smartphone soon. I'm considering getting the nexus 6p because you can root it without voiding the warranty, and because I'll be buying my phone independent of the network contract. Also, I'm most concerned about longevity/durability given the price of these smart phones.
Any reason I should go for samsung instead?
Or maybe cheapness trumps durability? so the nexus vs moto G?
I'm looking for your personal opinion if you had any reason for choosing one phone over the other
For me, things like this come down to the not-so-fine line between personal freedom and involuntary involvement in danger.
My view on this is the same for magnetic buckyballs, extreme sports, recreational drugs and virtually every other case of self-harm. We should focus on idiot-proofing idiots rather idiot-proofing their houses. Let capitalism allow for people to make their own wise decisions.
That said, there's a difference between accidentally eating two buckyballs and shoving them down the throat of someone else.
This is why our government uses the "Tempest" certification on buildings, categorizing whether information can be stolen from electromagnetic emanations within neighboring wall, room, just outside the building, etc.
It's called Van Eck phreaking, and it's one of the many modern day forms of wizardry. Essentially different components of your computer communicate via high frequency electric currents. These currents broadcast corresponding EM waves somewhere in the radio spectrum, and you decode the corresponding frequency components into your own information, which if you know what monitor they're using, for instance, you can catch the signal from their wires and reproduce their monitor image on your screen.
The significance of this article is unclear. I suppose the OP is pointing out the fact that programming languages are becoming more specific and 'tangible' to real-world applications.
Today, many of the new markets and opportunities for developers live in the real world. Rapidly developing domains such as autonomous cars, smart homes, intelligent office spaces, and mass customization require programmers to be savvy about how changes in data structures can lead to changes in objects.
I think this quote is sort of the thesis of the article. Even still it's really ambiguous. What opportunities don't live in the 'real world'? Does he mean that information transfer isn't 'physical'? Or is he specifically talking about robotics? User-interfaces? This person needs to work on clarity, and this article should not have been posted on Slashdot.
That's why I skip the articles and just look for the information I'm interested in. Like, hmm, how will this ground-based atmosphere-ridden telescope compare to the Hubble Space Telescope?
The GMT will leverage cutting-edge optics technology to combine seven giant mirrors to achieve 10 times the angular resolution of the Hubble Space Telescope in the infrared region of the spectrum.
When coupled with the GMT adaptive optics (AO) system they will produce images sharper than those from the Hubble or Webb Space Telescopes.
And it goes on to explain that the atmospheric turbulence 200 meters up can be measured with lasers, and the one of the mirrors is physically deformed to compensate for the measured distortions. Pretty neat.
Obviously this article fails to take into account the tiniest of electrical engineers. If you're an engineer, and your body's aspect ratio is, say, 10 orders of magnitude smaller than the average, you've got job security like a mofo.
The best part about it is that because the regular engineers are so cheap now, you can buy a bunch of tiny ones and be ok with losing them around the office.
Ok, so then what's your definition of philosophy? Tell me specifically why you believe they are different.
If you're referring to the 'faith' aspects of some religions vs the 'scientific method' -- or 'rational argument' for philosophy, then you have a very specific definition of the word 'religion'. laxman was right in saying that my definition of religion is very broad, but to me, if you can lump Buddhism and other non-violent, seemingly rational, almost poetic religions into the same category, then both philosophy and science (in their many forms and interpretations) get very close to fitting the more general definition of religion.
Many (but certainly not all) atheists reject 'religion' as outright stupid -- whereas their own life practices are unique and superior. Sure, whatever. They're just making general claims about specific instances, and spouting off the same bullshit words that everybody everywhere at all times says when they don't agree.
Oh spare me. Calling science a religion (however slyly) just shows your ignorance. And then you go on to suggest we should somehow filter religions? Yes you can define God very broadly. Most people, especially ISIS, do not.
So are you one of those folks that thinks all religion is just a mass delusion? Please. The only difference between philosophy and religion is connotation.
And yes, ISIS has a specific -- and deluded -- viewpoint on reality. Nobody said otherwise.
Keep in mind that the constituents of ISIS are literally fanatics. They are so strongly attached to their religious ideologies that they are willing to blow themselves up just to kill a single civilian. There's very little real political strategy in killing civilians. Only tunnel vision.
That said, some of the commenters are arguing that this evidence that all religion is ill-suited for humankind. This is a naive thing to say. Irrational violence and religion are not mutually inclusive. Similarly, an omnipotent god with free will (i.e., the Christian god) and monotheism are also not mutually inclusive, Brahman from Hinduism being a good example of a non-anthropomorphized god. People often seem to place a very narrow definition on 'God' and on 'religion', calling themselves atheist or non-religious, while they themselves are faithfully ascribing supreme importance to their own moral pursuits, such as science.
So to me it's not a question of whether or not religion is worth keeping around, but rather which religions are worth keeping around, and how we can improve upon them.
In every myth, cosmology, origin story and/or religion, the singular existence of our reality reveals the essence of the idea of God, regardless of how you choose to define God.
The main takeaway, to me at least, is that very personal information of yours is not as personal as you think it is anymore. Do your google searches indicate that you've been diagnosed with an STD? Do they infer that you're a frequent marijuana user? Do your posts reveal that you're paranoid about your lover cheating on you? Do they flag you for an NSA interesting persons list?
Your searches reveal information about your interests, and they are most definitely recorded in order to advertise to you. As we have learned with the OPM, or with Ashley Madison, or with one of the many other thousands of instances of data theft, much of your information is unprotected. It can be used to blackmail you, to out you as a minority or stereotype, and to reveal your (mildly or severely) illegal activities.
You may think that you're a moral person, but most people have character traits that give them shame.
As it turns out, Taco Bell has a higher presence in fracking regions than other more traditional Mexican food restaurants. I'll bet feeding that shit to yourself causes premature birth.
The definition of "advanced civilization" they used was Kardashev III, which uses total power on the order of 4.E37 watts. You're talking about a civilization that uses much less power. It still could be incredibly advanced compared to us, using energy incredibly efficiently (there's limits to the efficiency, so I'd suspect we're talking over Kardashev II here), or it could be operating on some principle we're not going to find for another million years.
As I said, it's silly to assume that any truly advanced civilization could/would consume or generate that much power. 4 × 10^37 watts is equivalent to 4.5 × 10^20 kg / s. That would mean they consume three Jupiter masses per year... the mass TOTALLY gone... poof. To give some perspective, the sun doesn't even do that. The sun doesn't even do 1 trillionth of that in its total output/year. It would take that civilization 1000 years to eat up an entire star (and they've been doing it for how long again?). Welp, let's just head to the next closest star and consume that. Wait a minute, it's gonna take 1000 years to get there? We need more power though!!!
Slashdot Mirror
What man? Which man? Whose the man?
When's a man a man? What makes a man a man?
Am I a man? Yes, technically I am
It takes effort to limit your energy consumption. Especially when it comes to vehicles. Get off your asses and stand at a bus stop instead, bike to work, carpool if you have to.
Lead by example and lay down the groundwork for others to follow in your footsteps.
Fight to the bitter end with your dollar. Don't be complacent.
Seriously. The only reason this shit is perpetuating is because of the choices that you're making right now.
The average facebook bot has more IQ than the average facebook user.
insulting facebook users will never get you laid
that said, using advertisement chatbots, if conversation goes uninitiated, will be a surefire way to end my relationship with facebook
The average facebook bot has more IQ than the average facebook user.
insulting facebook users will never get you laid
that anon really has it out for someone's tits
If only they used that system to fight the real evils! like to spot and take away your car keys when you're eating and driving at the same time. or maybe just to take away your food when you're somewhere on your way to heart disease. i hear if your skin's black there's a correlation to you having marijuana in your possession. fucking hedons
Any reason I should go for samsung instead?
Or maybe cheapness trumps durability? so the nexus vs moto G?
I'm looking for your personal opinion if you had any reason for choosing one phone over the other
For me, things like this come down to the not-so-fine line between personal freedom and involuntary involvement in danger.
My view on this is the same for magnetic buckyballs, extreme sports, recreational drugs and virtually every other case of self-harm. We should focus on idiot-proofing idiots rather idiot-proofing their houses. Let capitalism allow for people to make their own wise decisions.
That said, there's a difference between accidentally eating two buckyballs and shoving them down the throat of someone else.
This is why our government uses the "Tempest" certification on buildings, categorizing whether information can be stolen from electromagnetic emanations within neighboring wall, room, just outside the building, etc.
It's called Van Eck phreaking, and it's one of the many modern day forms of wizardry. Essentially different components of your computer communicate via high frequency electric currents. These currents broadcast corresponding EM waves somewhere in the radio spectrum, and you decode the corresponding frequency components into your own information, which if you know what monitor they're using, for instance, you can catch the signal from their wires and reproduce their monitor image on your screen.
The significance of this article is unclear. I suppose the OP is pointing out the fact that programming languages are becoming more specific and 'tangible' to real-world applications.
Today, many of the new markets and opportunities for developers live in the real world. Rapidly developing domains such as autonomous cars, smart homes, intelligent office spaces, and mass customization require programmers to be savvy about how changes in data structures can lead to changes in objects.
I think this quote is sort of the thesis of the article. Even still it's really ambiguous. What opportunities don't live in the 'real world'? Does he mean that information transfer isn't 'physical'? Or is he specifically talking about robotics? User-interfaces? This person needs to work on clarity, and this article should not have been posted on Slashdot.
will be the largest unmanned surface vehicle ever built at 130-feet long
Wow really? I bet it dwarfs all the other 130-feet long unmanned surface vehicles!!
Great! Maybe they can help me remember my pin
That's why I skip the articles and just look for the information I'm interested in. Like, hmm, how will this ground-based atmosphere-ridden telescope compare to the Hubble Space Telescope?
From the FAQ on http://www.gmto.org/ ... which is linked,
The GMT will leverage cutting-edge optics technology to combine seven giant mirrors to achieve 10 times the angular resolution of the Hubble Space Telescope in the infrared region of the spectrum.
When coupled with the GMT adaptive optics (AO) system they will produce images sharper than those from the Hubble or Webb Space Telescopes.
And it goes on to explain that the atmospheric turbulence 200 meters up can be measured with lasers, and the one of the mirrors is physically deformed to compensate for the measured distortions. Pretty neat.
Obviously this article fails to take into account the tiniest of electrical engineers. If you're an engineer, and your body's aspect ratio is, say, 10 orders of magnitude smaller than the average, you've got job security like a mofo.
The best part about it is that because the regular engineers are so cheap now, you can buy a bunch of tiny ones and be ok with losing them around the office.
Cheaper than scotch tape and pencils??
Ok, so then what's your definition of philosophy? Tell me specifically why you believe they are different.
If you're referring to the 'faith' aspects of some religions vs the 'scientific method' -- or 'rational argument' for philosophy, then you have a very specific definition of the word 'religion'. laxman was right in saying that my definition of religion is very broad, but to me, if you can lump Buddhism and other non-violent, seemingly rational, almost poetic religions into the same category, then both philosophy and science (in their many forms and interpretations) get very close to fitting the more general definition of religion.
Many (but certainly not all) atheists reject 'religion' as outright stupid -- whereas their own life practices are unique and superior. Sure, whatever. They're just making general claims about specific instances, and spouting off the same bullshit words that everybody everywhere at all times says when they don't agree.
Now she'll have *no chance* at talking herself out of a ticket when a cop pulls her over and looks at her drivers license.
Oh spare me. Calling science a religion (however slyly) just shows your ignorance. And then you go on to suggest we should somehow filter religions? Yes you can define God very broadly. Most people, especially ISIS, do not.
So are you one of those folks that thinks all religion is just a mass delusion? Please. The only difference between philosophy and religion is connotation.
And yes, ISIS has a specific -- and deluded -- viewpoint on reality. Nobody said otherwise.
Keep in mind that the constituents of ISIS are literally fanatics. They are so strongly attached to their religious ideologies that they are willing to blow themselves up just to kill a single civilian. There's very little real political strategy in killing civilians. Only tunnel vision.
That said, some of the commenters are arguing that this evidence that all religion is ill-suited for humankind. This is a naive thing to say. Irrational violence and religion are not mutually inclusive. Similarly, an omnipotent god with free will (i.e., the Christian god) and monotheism are also not mutually inclusive, Brahman from Hinduism being a good example of a non-anthropomorphized god. People often seem to place a very narrow definition on 'God' and on 'religion', calling themselves atheist or non-religious, while they themselves are faithfully ascribing supreme importance to their own moral pursuits, such as science.
So to me it's not a question of whether or not religion is worth keeping around, but rather which religions are worth keeping around, and how we can improve upon them.
In every myth, cosmology, origin story and/or religion, the singular existence of our reality reveals the essence of the idea of God, regardless of how you choose to define God.
This is the end of Windows...
But only the beginning of the end.
What I wanna know is, which team won the competition?
What exactly is there to be worried about?
The main takeaway, to me at least, is that very personal information of yours is not as personal as you think it is anymore. Do your google searches indicate that you've been diagnosed with an STD? Do they infer that you're a frequent marijuana user? Do your posts reveal that you're paranoid about your lover cheating on you? Do they flag you for an NSA interesting persons list?
Your searches reveal information about your interests, and they are most definitely recorded in order to advertise to you. As we have learned with the OPM, or with Ashley Madison, or with one of the many other thousands of instances of data theft, much of your information is unprotected. It can be used to blackmail you, to out you as a minority or stereotype, and to reveal your (mildly or severely) illegal activities.
You may think that you're a moral person, but most people have character traits that give them shame.
As it turns out, Taco Bell has a higher presence in fracking regions than other more traditional Mexican food restaurants. I'll bet feeding that shit to yourself causes premature birth.
Of course, this paper says they didn't see any. But it was worth a shot.
Some of the greatest scientific discoveries were completely unexpected. So indeed it was worth a shot.
The definition of "advanced civilization" they used was Kardashev III, which uses total power on the order of 4.E37 watts. You're talking about a civilization that uses much less power. It still could be incredibly advanced compared to us, using energy incredibly efficiently (there's limits to the efficiency, so I'd suspect we're talking over Kardashev II here), or it could be operating on some principle we're not going to find for another million years.
As I said, it's silly to assume that any truly advanced civilization could/would consume or generate that much power. 4 × 10^37 watts is equivalent to 4.5 × 10^20 kg / s. That would mean they consume three Jupiter masses per year... the mass TOTALLY gone... poof. To give some perspective, the sun doesn't even do that. The sun doesn't even do 1 trillionth of that in its total output/year. It would take that civilization 1000 years to eat up an entire star (and they've been doing it for how long again?). Welp, let's just head to the next closest star and consume that. Wait a minute, it's gonna take 1000 years to get there? We need more power though!!!