Sure... but I wasn't suggesting that you necessarily needed to have a full charge every day to get to work... any more than you need to have a full tank of gas. I was saying that with an electric car you need to have your car charged overnight whenever the charge is running low.
If you only notice as you are leaving your home that you don't have enough charge to get to work in your electric car, you're completely fucked.
If you notice as you you are leaving your home that you don't have enough gas to get to work, a quick stop at a gas station will add perhaps 5 minutes at most to your total commute time.
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything... I was saying that if you are low on gas, you can make a quick stop at the gas station on the way to work that will only add 5 minutes at most to your commute time.
If you are too low on a battery charge to make it to work in your electric car, however, then you're screwed.
An electric car that is nearly depleted in charge might not even be able to go more than 5 or 10 miles, while a car that is nearly out of gas can usually at least make it to a gas station before continuing the journey.
This is viable because the time it takes to fill up a car even from completely empty is only a few minutes. I'm suggesting that battery recharge times need to become similarly convenient before you will see electric cars really become mainstream.
How often you need to charge is not the point.... nor is the distance you need to drive. If you notice in the morning that you should have charged your car last night because you won't make it to work on what you have left, you are completely screwed over. If you don't have enough gas to make it to work, however, you can always make a quick stop on the way.
Wanna take a guess as just how long you'd need to be driving an electric car before the price difference between electricity and gas would have paid for that second car that you are needing to have as a back up?
And of course, expecting to add a second car into the mix only makes things worse for people who live in apartments or condos because a lot of multiple family dwellings only provide one parking spot per unit.
Of course, if something is only going to be widely consumed by the wealthy, it's not going to ever be really mass market, is it?
Recharging overnight is fine but if you forget to plug your car in overnight, you may not be able to get to work the next morning, whereas if you forget to fill up in last night when you noticed the tank was low, you can at least make a short stop along the way to work today.
Plus, of course, if a person doesn't even live in a place where they have the facilities to charge their car overnight (eg, either a communal parking without any electric outlets or having to park their car in the street in front of their residence), electric cars as they exist today are complete nonviable. While not exactly a majority of the population, the number of people in that position is far too large a slice of the pie to ignore (more than 25% nationwide here in Canada, and in some municipalities, it's as high as 70%).
I was more referring to the fact that in the half second or so that it would take a person from the sidewalk to quickly walk out right into traffic will take enough time that a car that close when they started would still have passed by the time they got there. Less to do with human reaction time and more to do with limits on how fast human muscles can even actually work in the first place.
First of all, this story has nothing to do with Meltdown or Spectre. It is about a set of AMD-specific bugs. Secondly, AMD wasn't affected by Meltdown. Nobody pretended it wasn't affected by Spectre other than people who didn't understand that when it was mentioned that "AMD was not affected", it was in reference to Meltdown only. The apparent disinformation is not acceptable, but is at least understandable because the news of both was publicly released essentially simultaneously and it would have been easy to misinterpret that AMD was unaffected as applying to both. This should have been more clearly worded in the initial release that made the statement. Nonetheless, a clarification was made when it became apparent that this is what people were believing.
Finally, AMD's response to this is vastly more consumer-friendly than Intel's with respect to their own issues, because it only requires applying patches to existing hardware instead of having to go out and buy new hardware.
For example, if the vehicle is travelling 45 MPH down an arterial street, and a pedestrian jumps out 20 feet ahead of the vehicle.... it will be nearly impossible for an accident to be avoided.
Nearly impossible is an understatement. Given the typical coefficient of friction between asphalt and road in *IDEAL* conditions, the absolute minimum stopping distance at 45mph is nearly 100 feet, and that's before you even allow for reaction time.
However, assuming that you could get reaction time down to zero by using a computer to control braking, you can easily show that the scenario of a person jumping out in front of a car only 20 feet away is not realistic. In fact, if a person tried to jump out in front of a car when it was only twenty feet away, a person jumping out might be suddenly moving at perhaps 10 to 15 miles per hour, and if they wait until the car is only 20 feet away to try and jump in front of it, the time that the car takes to travel that 20 feet is so short that by the time the person manages to get into traffic, the car will have already passed him. The car behind, assuming it was at a safe following distance for the speed, would actually have more than enough time to stop.
That's because they think that tech exists because they don't understand it.... neither do you, apparently, if you think there's any similarity between checking hash similarities on binary files to identify copies or copyright infringement and being able to identify meaningful similarity in computer source code that has any relevance whatsoever to copyright infringement,
Most code is built up around a relatively small set of patterns, and it is not possible to identify the similarity of two programs that might use similar patterns to accomplish the same result without also falsely identifying two entirely different programs which happen might use the same pattern as being similar as well. At best, you'd be able to accomplish it in a meaningful way for such a narrow class of use cases that it would be less than useless in any practical sense.
It's like solving the fucking Turing halting problem, which is mathematically proven to be unsolvable except in an extremely narrow class of instances where very precise limitations on what the code may contain can be known in advance to exist.
It's no less delicious to tell them to fuck off because what they are asking for is outside of the realm of what is even physically possible with today's technology.
Right up there with faster than light travel and transporters.
.... for how, technologically, they are going to make this apparently magic filter?
Free speech matters aside, what they are wanting to implement is actually technologically impossible without so many false positives as to render the technology utterly useless even at best.
Perhaps. Most of the videos that I watch on youtube are for informational or educational purposes, so the recommended videos I get tend to all be along those lines. As I'm already pretty good at filtering out garbage, I don't get that much bad stuff, but I notice whenever I click on one bogus facts video that I didn't happen to recognize as such before I clicked on it, I will find myself getting lots of other equally stupid ones in my recommended videos section before my other preferences seem to overwhelm them and things go back to normal.
Ordinarily, yes. To be frank, I don't have a full explanation right now for exactly how Scotty managed to pull that stunt off... It's clear to me that he went well outside of the transporter's normal operation parameters to accomplish it. While I can see that it almost certainly involved simultaneous holograms of his impression upon spacetime, both the inverse and copy, overlapping eachother *exactly* to keep his body stable for a prolonged period, effectively putting him into a state of suspended animation (regrettably, there was too much drift over time with Scotty's co-officer's pattern to be able to retrieve him), I couldn't guess what kind of engineering trick Scotty used to cause their masses to disappear from normal space in the first place.
This is anecdotal, but if my own experience watching stuff on it is any indication, I would guess that the percentage of patently false videos on youtube is not less than 5%, and may be MUCH higher.
But to follow up, I don't mean to be dismissive about your questions. I honestly can't say right now because I really haven't analysed the situations where transporter incidents occur that are well outside of the normal operation parameters
I don't know at the moment. I would need some more time, far more than I currently have to spend on something which is not to me any more of a hobby and recreational pasttime, to analyse each specific situation to determine a coherent explanation.
I'm suggesting that it doesn't result in disintegration at all. If you just applied the inverse hologram without a copy of the original spacetime impression, there would be no particular place for the particles to want to go. The probability of particles spontaneously ceasing to exist entirely is still staggeringly low, so in absence of a particular other place to be, the particles that comprise the target would tend to stay exactly where they are. The only way to use a transporter as a means of disintegration is to project the destination spacetime impression 4d hologram across a much larger region of space than the original, forcing the particles comprising the target to be dispersed.
Conversely, simply producing the necessary spacetime impression at the destination does not, by itself, create any matter at the destination, it simply creates a receptacle for all of the particles within the target to prefer to be once you try to flatten their current spacetime probability functions.
Slashdot Mirror
That fast charger is still going to be a whole lot longer than a fill up... which is my entire point.
Sure... but I wasn't suggesting that you necessarily needed to have a full charge every day to get to work... any more than you need to have a full tank of gas. I was saying that with an electric car you need to have your car charged overnight whenever the charge is running low.
If you only notice as you are leaving your home that you don't have enough charge to get to work in your electric car, you're completely fucked.
If you notice as you you are leaving your home that you don't have enough gas to get to work, a quick stop at a gas station will add perhaps 5 minutes at most to your total commute time.
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything... I was saying that if you are low on gas, you can make a quick stop at the gas station on the way to work that will only add 5 minutes at most to your commute time.
If you are too low on a battery charge to make it to work in your electric car, however, then you're screwed.
That's only convenient if you don't have anywhere else to be at the moment.
Filling a typical car completely with gas from a virtually empty tank takes 3 or 4 minutes. Charging a car to a usable level takes no less than 20.
An electric car that is nearly depleted in charge might not even be able to go more than 5 or 10 miles, while a car that is nearly out of gas can usually at least make it to a gas station before continuing the journey.
This is viable because the time it takes to fill up a car even from completely empty is only a few minutes. I'm suggesting that battery recharge times need to become similarly convenient before you will see electric cars really become mainstream.
How often you need to charge is not the point.... nor is the distance you need to drive. If you notice in the morning that you should have charged your car last night because you won't make it to work on what you have left, you are completely screwed over. If you don't have enough gas to make it to work, however, you can always make a quick stop on the way.
Wanna take a guess as just how long you'd need to be driving an electric car before the price difference between electricity and gas would have paid for that second car that you are needing to have as a back up?
And of course, expecting to add a second car into the mix only makes things worse for people who live in apartments or condos because a lot of multiple family dwellings only provide one parking spot per unit.
Of course, if something is only going to be widely consumed by the wealthy, it's not going to ever be really mass market, is it?
Recharging overnight is fine but if you forget to plug your car in overnight, you may not be able to get to work the next morning, whereas if you forget to fill up in last night when you noticed the tank was low, you can at least make a short stop along the way to work today.
Plus, of course, if a person doesn't even live in a place where they have the facilities to charge their car overnight (eg, either a communal parking without any electric outlets or having to park their car in the street in front of their residence), electric cars as they exist today are complete nonviable. While not exactly a majority of the population, the number of people in that position is far too large a slice of the pie to ignore (more than 25% nationwide here in Canada, and in some municipalities, it's as high as 70%).
30 to 40 feet away would work just fine though.
Finally, AMD's response to this is vastly more consumer-friendly than Intel's with respect to their own issues, because it only requires applying patches to existing hardware instead of having to go out and buy new hardware.
This is so many levels of awesome, that I have no other words for it.
Nearly impossible is an understatement. Given the typical coefficient of friction between asphalt and road in *IDEAL* conditions, the absolute minimum stopping distance at 45mph is nearly 100 feet, and that's before you even allow for reaction time.
However, assuming that you could get reaction time down to zero by using a computer to control braking, you can easily show that the scenario of a person jumping out in front of a car only 20 feet away is not realistic. In fact, if a person tried to jump out in front of a car when it was only twenty feet away, a person jumping out might be suddenly moving at perhaps 10 to 15 miles per hour, and if they wait until the car is only 20 feet away to try and jump in front of it, the time that the car takes to travel that 20 feet is so short that by the time the person manages to get into traffic, the car will have already passed him. The car behind, assuming it was at a safe following distance for the speed, would actually have more than enough time to stop.
That's because they think that tech exists because they don't understand it.... neither do you, apparently, if you think there's any similarity between checking hash similarities on binary files to identify copies or copyright infringement and being able to identify meaningful similarity in computer source code that has any relevance whatsoever to copyright infringement,
Most code is built up around a relatively small set of patterns, and it is not possible to identify the similarity of two programs that might use similar patterns to accomplish the same result without also falsely identifying two entirely different programs which happen might use the same pattern as being similar as well. At best, you'd be able to accomplish it in a meaningful way for such a narrow class of use cases that it would be less than useless in any practical sense.
It's like solving the fucking Turing halting problem, which is mathematically proven to be unsolvable except in an extremely narrow class of instances where very precise limitations on what the code may contain can be known in advance to exist.
[nt]
It's no less delicious to tell them to fuck off because what they are asking for is outside of the realm of what is even physically possible with today's technology.
Right up there with faster than light travel and transporters.
As I said, you don't even need free speech rights to ignore this.
The expectation is well beyond anything that is remotely possible with any technology that exists, anywhere on earth.
Free speech matters aside, what they are wanting to implement is actually technologically impossible without so many false positives as to render the technology utterly useless even at best.
Perhaps. Most of the videos that I watch on youtube are for informational or educational purposes, so the recommended videos I get tend to all be along those lines. As I'm already pretty good at filtering out garbage, I don't get that much bad stuff, but I notice whenever I click on one bogus facts video that I didn't happen to recognize as such before I clicked on it, I will find myself getting lots of other equally stupid ones in my recommended videos section before my other preferences seem to overwhelm them and things go back to normal.
Not likely...
I mean, wouldn't that still require cooperation from law enforcement in the country where the server resides?
Ordinarily, yes. To be frank, I don't have a full explanation right now for exactly how Scotty managed to pull that stunt off... It's clear to me that he went well outside of the transporter's normal operation parameters to accomplish it. While I can see that it almost certainly involved simultaneous holograms of his impression upon spacetime, both the inverse and copy, overlapping eachother *exactly* to keep his body stable for a prolonged period, effectively putting him into a state of suspended animation (regrettably, there was too much drift over time with Scotty's co-officer's pattern to be able to retrieve him), I couldn't guess what kind of engineering trick Scotty used to cause their masses to disappear from normal space in the first place.
This is anecdotal, but if my own experience watching stuff on it is any indication, I would guess that the percentage of patently false videos on youtube is not less than 5%, and may be MUCH higher.
But to follow up, I don't mean to be dismissive about your questions. I honestly can't say right now because I really haven't analysed the situations where transporter incidents occur that are well outside of the normal operation parameters
I don't know at the moment. I would need some more time, far more than I currently have to spend on something which is not to me any more of a hobby and recreational pasttime, to analyse each specific situation to determine a coherent explanation.
Refusal to give a refund is not generally a valid reason for a CC chargeback. For one thing, you still have the merchandise you paid for.
I'm suggesting that it doesn't result in disintegration at all. If you just applied the inverse hologram without a copy of the original spacetime impression, there would be no particular place for the particles to want to go. The probability of particles spontaneously ceasing to exist entirely is still staggeringly low, so in absence of a particular other place to be, the particles that comprise the target would tend to stay exactly where they are. The only way to use a transporter as a means of disintegration is to project the destination spacetime impression 4d hologram across a much larger region of space than the original, forcing the particles comprising the target to be dispersed.
Conversely, simply producing the necessary spacetime impression at the destination does not, by itself, create any matter at the destination, it simply creates a receptacle for all of the particles within the target to prefer to be once you try to flatten their current spacetime probability functions.