Actually, that is almost certainly how it is done... it is by far the cheapest and most reliable way to implement a switch when you want to have a timer on how long it is held.
Canada and the USA are neighbors, but they are different nations, with different laws. The right to remain silent is not as absolute here as it is in the USA.
That would put this bomb's yield at 30 megatons. This is itself only a little less than third the size of the Tsar bomb, the largest man-made explosion of all time.
For comparison, it is also only slightly larger than the energies released in 1980 by the Mount St Helens eruption in Washington, USA (equivalent to about 24 megatons).
Radiation, not simple devastation area, is the real danger of nuclear weaponry.
Oh... I forgot to mention... the delay could actually caused by a capacitor, the controlled time it takes to charge being determined by the value of a resistor in series with it. There are any number of resistor-capacitor combinations that you could use to achieve a three second delay, and I would expect that it might vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, or be determined by product availability. Once the capacitor has a sufficient charge, it exceeds the ttl threshold of a "high" signal. which is then relayed through a pair of transistors with a secondary RC network that actually turn the power supply off. I've built one of these in my electronics class that I took in university in the 1990's, and although the one that I built was not specifically for PC's, there's no reason that PC's would use something any different. It's cheap, easy, and has virtually zero possibility of failure.
No. no firmware is involved any more than firmware is involved in making current conduct in only one direction in a diode. Yes pressing the power button sends a signal but this signal is connected via raw transistor logic. No firmware is involved at all
If this rumor is true, it is one of the few legitimately infuriating things Apple will have done with their products.
(Raised eyebrow)
"Few"???
I'm not sure if you're trying to be deliberately ironic or what....
I can't recall the last time Apple made a change that actually turned out to be a good one. They've probably done it at some points in the past, but I can't think of any offhand.
No... that mechanism is handled via circuitry in the power supply. No software is involved unless you suggest that the switching action of transistors is caused by software.
... then they must surely know what direction it lies in, from the sun. Working backwards from there, they should be able to narrow the area to search sufficiently that they ought to at least figure out exactly where they need to be looking to find this object.
Depends on how you define "worth having"... if you define it in terms of minimizing the total number of otherwise preventable casualties, then it all comes down to which numbers are lower. Considering alone just the number of times each year that crimes are committed with stolen guns, at least *some* percentage of those would be preventable due to the reduced availability of guns that anyone other than their registered owner could use. Consider also the number of shootings each year that are caused by children, who while you can go ahead say that they shouldn't have had the opportunity to even hold a working gun in the first place, the reality is that curious kids figure out ways around the limits that parents might have... and if the gun is kept too secure, then one defeats most of the purpose of relying on the gun in an emergency situation in the first place. There are probably dozens of other entirely realistic situations that I could come up with where fingerprint verification to fire a gun could result in saved innocent lives, not lost ones. Without actually deploying this technology on a large scale, the only real challenge to solving this is to figure out which number is actually larger... but by far an even greater challenge to deploying this tech on a large scale in the first place is people like yourself, who have blindly decided that they would not trust it.
It doesn't take a few seconds to pull a trigger a second time... perhaps a second, at most. Yes, this can be fatal... but what percentage of the time would it be, and how does the number quantitatively compare to the number of lives lost every year due accidental gun firings or shots that would not have otherwise occurred if this tech were in place?
Perhaps what you really mean to say is that if you need glyphs that are not part of ascii to express something, then perhaps/. isn't the platform you need.
Referring to a textual glyph as an "image" is not really accurate. Heck, the classic smiley icon is more of an image than a thorn is, and you can type that using plain ascii.
But you seemed to miss the point I was making... which is that if that number is less than the number of accidental deaths that could be prevented by this kind of tech (and that number is entirely quantifiable, right now, as measured by how many people die every year from a gun fired by someone other than than gun's registered owner), then while the loss of life is always unfortunate, it's still a net win.
As you said... it can fail once and go right back to working again... so my questions remains, how often would that failure actually result in death by the average person using such a device (as opposed to in a military, or law enforcement situation)?
The use cases for the military and the police are quite different from the real world use cases for members of the general public, so a fair comparison could not be made just restricting a study to those groups. There are a known number of accidental gun deaths each year that could certainly be prevented with smart gun tech. If that number is less than the number of times that guns fail when they are supposed to, then obviously the tech doesn't help... but if the number of times that the gun fails to fire is small enough, then as I said... it's still a win.
Where do you get that 1% of the time the gun might not fire from?
I'm not saying that this wouldn't ever happen, but can you actually quantify the amount of time that would actually end up being fatal for the user?
It's a serious question, not a rhetorical one. I don't know if any studies have been done to figure out the number, but if it is any less than the number of people who *actually* get killed because someone other than the owner of a gun was using it, then it's still a win.
I believe the same argument is made for autonomous driving.... if it can save lives, it's a win.
The only AI's that have to appear human are AI's that are *intended* to pass for human. AI is artificial intelligence, that is, intelligence that happens to be artificial. Full stop. Nothing more, nothing less. Any human-like characteristics that we desire to assign to an AI are entirely independent to what AI actually is, by definition, and are only circumstantially related to it in the sense that an as-yet unprecedented sophistication level of AI would need to be achieved to implement many of those characteristics.
AI is intelligence that happens to be artificial, nothing more and nothing less. An intelligent computer, therefore, would by definition have AI unless you are suggesting that such a computer could come into existence entirely through natural processes, as opposed to man-induced.
It seems to me that since 3 times Y is 200 percent more than Y, 3 times more than Y would be 3Y, while 3 times less than Y should be -Y. This probably isn't what is meant, so the construction is wrong.
Changing information on an account without verifying that the person doing the changing is actually authorized to do so is... well... negligent to the point of incompetence, and he may be able to successfully sue Verizon for the costs associated with getting his email back.
The only places in the area where I live that you could get to the airport for $5 on cab are the places that are close enough to walk there, because it costs $5 just to *GET IN* to a cab.... before you go even start to go anywhere. It is roughly a 30 minute drive on the highway from my place to the airport, and that trip adds another $50. If most of that money is going to the driver, they make a heckuva lot more per hour than I thought they did.
Slashdot Mirror
What.... you're saying you need a full hotel license to run even a small B&B in NYC? Wow.
While it means you'd have to pay tax on the money you make from rentals... that's what you were supposed to be doing all along, right?
Actually, that is almost certainly how it is done... it is by far the cheapest and most reliable way to implement a switch when you want to have a timer on how long it is held.
okay, but I thought we talking about Canada here
Canada and the USA are neighbors, but they are different nations, with different laws. The right to remain silent is not as absolute here as it is in the USA.
Which provider(s)? All the plans I know of do not require the recipient of a text to pay anything.
That would put this bomb's yield at 30 megatons. This is itself only a little less than third the size of the Tsar bomb, the largest man-made explosion of all time.
For comparison, it is also only slightly larger than the energies released in 1980 by the Mount St Helens eruption in Washington, USA (equivalent to about 24 megatons).
Radiation, not simple devastation area, is the real danger of nuclear weaponry.
Oh... I forgot to mention... the delay could actually caused by a capacitor, the controlled time it takes to charge being determined by the value of a resistor in series with it. There are any number of resistor-capacitor combinations that you could use to achieve a three second delay, and I would expect that it might vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, or be determined by product availability. Once the capacitor has a sufficient charge, it exceeds the ttl threshold of a "high" signal. which is then relayed through a pair of transistors with a secondary RC network that actually turn the power supply off. I've built one of these in my electronics class that I took in university in the 1990's, and although the one that I built was not specifically for PC's, there's no reason that PC's would use something any different. It's cheap, easy, and has virtually zero possibility of failure.
No. no firmware is involved any more than firmware is involved in making current conduct in only one direction in a diode. Yes pressing the power button sends a signal but this signal is connected via raw transistor logic. No firmware is involved at all
(Raised eyebrow)
"Few"???
I'm not sure if you're trying to be deliberately ironic or what....
I can't recall the last time Apple made a change that actually turned out to be a good one. They've probably done it at some points in the past, but I can't think of any offhand.
No... that mechanism is handled via circuitry in the power supply. No software is involved unless you suggest that the switching action of transistors is caused by software.
... then they must surely know what direction it lies in, from the sun. Working backwards from there, they should be able to narrow the area to search sufficiently that they ought to at least figure out exactly where they need to be looking to find this object.
Depends on how you define "worth having"... if you define it in terms of minimizing the total number of otherwise preventable casualties, then it all comes down to which numbers are lower. Considering alone just the number of times each year that crimes are committed with stolen guns, at least *some* percentage of those would be preventable due to the reduced availability of guns that anyone other than their registered owner could use. Consider also the number of shootings each year that are caused by children, who while you can go ahead say that they shouldn't have had the opportunity to even hold a working gun in the first place, the reality is that curious kids figure out ways around the limits that parents might have... and if the gun is kept too secure, then one defeats most of the purpose of relying on the gun in an emergency situation in the first place. There are probably dozens of other entirely realistic situations that I could come up with where fingerprint verification to fire a gun could result in saved innocent lives, not lost ones. Without actually deploying this technology on a large scale, the only real challenge to solving this is to figure out which number is actually larger... but by far an even greater challenge to deploying this tech on a large scale in the first place is people like yourself, who have blindly decided that they would not trust it.
It doesn't take a few seconds to pull a trigger a second time... perhaps a second, at most. Yes, this can be fatal... but what percentage of the time would it be, and how does the number quantitatively compare to the number of lives lost every year due accidental gun firings or shots that would not have otherwise occurred if this tech were in place?
Perhaps what you really mean to say is that if you need glyphs that are not part of ascii to express something, then perhaps /. isn't the platform you need.
Referring to a textual glyph as an "image" is not really accurate. Heck, the classic smiley icon is more of an image than a thorn is, and you can type that using plain ascii.
But you seemed to miss the point I was making... which is that if that number is less than the number of accidental deaths that could be prevented by this kind of tech (and that number is entirely quantifiable, right now, as measured by how many people die every year from a gun fired by someone other than than gun's registered owner), then while the loss of life is always unfortunate, it's still a net win.
As you said... it can fail once and go right back to working again... so my questions remains, how often would that failure actually result in death by the average person using such a device (as opposed to in a military, or law enforcement situation)?
The use cases for the military and the police are quite different from the real world use cases for members of the general public, so a fair comparison could not be made just restricting a study to those groups. There are a known number of accidental gun deaths each year that could certainly be prevented with smart gun tech. If that number is less than the number of times that guns fail when they are supposed to, then obviously the tech doesn't help... but if the number of times that the gun fails to fire is small enough, then as I said... it's still a win.
Where do you get that 1% of the time the gun might not fire from?
I'm not saying that this wouldn't ever happen, but can you actually quantify the amount of time that would actually end up being fatal for the user?
It's a serious question, not a rhetorical one. I don't know if any studies have been done to figure out the number, but if it is any less than the number of people who *actually* get killed because someone other than the owner of a gun was using it, then it's still a win.
I believe the same argument is made for autonomous driving.... if it can save lives, it's a win.
The only AI's that have to appear human are AI's that are *intended* to pass for human. AI is artificial intelligence, that is, intelligence that happens to be artificial. Full stop. Nothing more, nothing less. Any human-like characteristics that we desire to assign to an AI are entirely independent to what AI actually is, by definition, and are only circumstantially related to it in the sense that an as-yet unprecedented sophistication level of AI would need to be achieved to implement many of those characteristics.
If an intelligence is man-made, then that intelligence is not natural, and is artificial intelligence by definition.
AI is intelligence that happens to be artificial, nothing more and nothing less. An intelligent computer, therefore, would by definition have AI unless you are suggesting that such a computer could come into existence entirely through natural processes, as opposed to man-induced.
It seems to me that since 3 times Y is 200 percent more than Y, 3 times more than Y would be 3Y, while 3 times less than Y should be -Y. This probably isn't what is meant, so the construction is wrong.
Changing information on an account without verifying that the person doing the changing is actually authorized to do so is... well... negligent to the point of incompetence, and he may be able to successfully sue Verizon for the costs associated with getting his email back.
The only places in the area where I live that you could get to the airport for $5 on cab are the places that are close enough to walk there, because it costs $5 just to *GET IN* to a cab.... before you go even start to go anywhere. It is roughly a 30 minute drive on the highway from my place to the airport, and that trip adds another $50. If most of that money is going to the driver, they make a heckuva lot more per hour than I thought they did.