131 F seems like it would leave a lot of pathogens alive, but I wonder which ones are on their "no go" list? This could be a great way for non-cannibals to get to have the experience of Kuru.
Also curious: I know that human *waste* can't be used as fertilizer for "certified organic" foods, but what about actual humans?
Damn, that's depressing. I'm depressed and lonely. If only I used social media, I'd at least have a way to be less depressed and lonely by stopping. But I don't, so I guess I'm stuck this way.
I have a very common name, and I get misdirected e-mail from all over the world.
Fairly frequently, I'll reply to let the sender know that they've got the wrong e-mail address.
Once it was billing info from a phone company that had the recipient's phone number, so I texted her to let her know she'd put in the wrong e-mail address when she signed up for her phone.
Sometimes they're commercial e-mail with a valid "unsubscribe" link, so that's nice.
The most frustrating ones though, are commercial e-mail without a useful reply-to, where the unsubscribe link needs you to log in. But it's not my account, so I can't do that... though there is a "reset your password" option, which I technically could use, since it would send an e-mail to *me*. I haven't done that, but it always makes me wonder, if I did, would I be breaking the law? Because I did "hack" that account. But does the account really "belong" to the person who created it, or does it belong to the person who receives the e-mail that the account is associated to?
Personally, I'd be a little terrified to meet the mammal that secretes milk glass. Fortunately, the FDA probably won't come after that one, as if you're eating milk glass, you have other more serious problems that need immediate attention.
So this article went in a different way than I assumed based on the headline.
I had interpreted it as being able to tell Google Assistant "Hey, call Comcast Tech support and get them to fix my internet" (which, of course, you'd ask Google Assistant on your phone, since your home internet is broken) and then just forget about it until you get a message from Google the next day saying "I spent 15 hours on hold and went through twelve layers of tech support escalation, but finally found someone who wasn't a moron and your internet should be working now."
And I'm just saying that's the kind of technology that I'd love to see come out of Google.
Of course, the danger for Google is that people will figure out that they can say "OK Google, call YouTube and find out why my video got demonetized.", but I get the impression that Google is big enough that they've passed that threshold of "The right hand doesn't know which foot the left is shooting."
...a competent motorist in the driving seat who can react appropriately to the road ahead.
Really? That's a requirement? Have you been out on the roads recently? Do you have an estimate for the percentage of cars on the road today that have this "feature"? I don't think it's as common as you might suspect, and hasn't been for... well, since the invention of the automobile.
Now, I'm joking, but honestly, that's an option with phones, and it's frequently an option with desktop monitors (the one I'm looking at now does this). This seems like a great option, as wide screens are (or at least seem to be) really good for gaming and watching video, but tall screens are better for reading or editing documents.
The only problem, of course, is that on a laptop, you have a keyboard attached to your screen, and one of those orientations is going to be awkward to type on.
One solution would be a detachable screen that could connect at either of two sides. There is the possibility of misplacing your screen, but on the other hand, it should make replacing a broken screen far simpler. That seems like a pretty ideal solution to me. Don't know if there are any out there. If not, there should be.
I'm kind of curious, are doors in California required to have warnings along the lines of "Warning: outside contains sunlight, which is known to the state of California to cause cancer."?
granted, I of course haven't read TFA, but considering that, as a general rule, tuition rates have increased far faster than, say, professor pay scales, why are there cash-strapped higher education institutions? Or is it that there do exist higher ed institutions that are financially responsible and have reasonable tuition, which in turn drives away students who want to spend tons of "free" loan money at more interesting colleges, and this is a group of investors looking to "fix" that "problem"?
Here's my proposed compromise: Keep the "fall back", but get rid of the "spring forward". Sure, it might take some getting used to, but I'm sure we'd manage it sometime over the next 24 years or so.
I understand that AI can be really smart, that sensors are really good at seeing objects, predicting collisions, reading road signs, that sort of thing, and they have the distinct advantage that they're always on, always looking in every direction, and don't get distracted. However, the one thing I cannot fathom being possible in a car at this level of autonomy is being able to handle a cop in an intersection directing traffic. I'm a human (at least according to CAPTCHAs), and humans are notorious for their ability to see patterns and derive meaning even when there isn't anything there, but sometimes even I have a really hard time figuring out what a cop directing traffic wants me to do. Are you saying go? Stop? Wait a second? Are you even trying to communicate with me, or someone else near me? Or maybe you're just throwing up random gang signs because you got bored?
That's honestly a really huge step in autonomy. Removing the steering wheel and pedals means you've increased confidence in your AI from being able to handle 99.999% of situations to being able to handle 100% of situations.
But what I want is an all-inclusive term that includes homemakers, caregivers, and people who work jobs with taxable incomes. "Employed" doesn't seem to cut it. "Really busy right now" is probably accurate, but doesn't flow trippingly from the tongue. "useful" and "productive" are also probably accurate, but a bit judgmental. I just really would like a better word.
Just because accepted definitions are widely used, doesn't mean that they're particularly useful. Personally, I'd love to either see employment redefined or a new term coined that includes people who "work at home to look after their family", but that would be a step towards exposing the huge gaping marriage loophole in tax law, and I think everyone is either terrified of that, or has never really considered it.
Cash can be slightly dangerous. It's a much better vector for the spread of diseases than plastic, or NFC. Getting mugged is very bad, but very rare. Getting the flu is probably less bad, but much more common.
You can observe a correlation between long hours and success, and try to achieve success via long hours, which will lead to burnout, but not necessarily to success.
Let me put it this way: There's a strong correlation between extremely financially successful companies and ownership of corporate jets. Does that mean that your struggling company should pool all its cash to buy a corporate jet, so that it'll become successful? Clearly, no.
Let me posit, that if you really love what you're doing so much that you can't stand the thought of *not* putting every hour, minute, and second that you possibly can into doing that thing you love so much, then there's a better-than-average chance that it'll be successful (and you with it).
Putting in a ton of hours will most likely lead to *either* success *or* burnout. If your goal in putting in those hours is success, the more likely outcome is burnout. If the hours are an enjoyable goal on their own, then success will be a by-product of that pursuit.
Not just that, but (and I realize this is more pertinent to investments than to savings accounts) heart surgery does not have emergent behaviors based on the choices of heart surgeons. Financial decisions do. If every heart surgeon simultaneously decides that (I don't know jack about heart surgery) clamping a certain artery in a certain way during surgery is the best choice, they may or may not be right, but the fact that they're all making that choice won't change how right or wrong it is. If every retirement savings plan simultaneously decides that the best place to store your money is to invest it in stock from International Widgets Inc., then, well, that's probably good for the first people to do so, but might not be so great for everyone else.
A long time ago, I recall reading about the theory of negative mass, and if I recall correctly, it should allow for the creation of pseudo-reactionless drives. Technically, it isn't reactionless because it's obeying all the laws of reaction drives, it's just that f=ma gets weird when m0.
So if you have a ship that contains equal parts mass and negative mass, its "total mass" will be 0, and any force applied to it will instantly accelerate it to lightspeed.
It's always been one of those things I assumed would be permanently theoretical. If they actually made some, that's absolutely fascinating.
Not to say that there's any sort of scientific or evidence-based reason to believe the simulation theory, but really, who among us can't envision the following scenario:
GM: welcome all, I hope you enjoy playing in this universe I've created. I've been working on it for the last 14 billion years, and I think it's pretty awesome. Now, I've provided you all with the complete set of rules for this universe, but it can get complicated at times, and I'm sure you haven't read through all of them and that's fine. {chuckle}. So, Bob, what character class will you be rolling tonight?
Bob: Scientist.
GM: Really? You don't want to play something more interesting, like maybe Prophet, Eccentric Billionaire, World Leader, maybe we could even make up some sort of weird hybrid class?
Bob: Scientist.
GM: OK, well whatever floats your boat. Now, what's your character doing?
Bob: shining a laser through two slits and looking at the pattern the light makes behind them.
GM: Uhhhhh.... OK, you see the interference pattern that the light waves make.
Bob: Really? I do? Because I remember reading in your rule book about how "light" in your universe is conveyed by these "photon" particles. Wanna explain how these particles are making interference patterns?
GM: {sigh} Fuck you Bob. I'm just trying to run a fun game here. Why do you have to bring your rules-lawyering BS to every damn session? I mean, seriously you guys are no fun. Whatever. I'm retconning everything so that light is now a wavicle that's a wave until you look at it, when it becomes a particle. Happy now?
Bob: OK. My character is now going to invent a new branch of scientific research to study the underlying forces of the universe.
GM: This is gonna suck. I mean really, my last group was *so* much more fun. I could just plop down some burning shrubbery and have it tell them things and they'd be all like "sure, that's cool." and run with it. I don't even know why I game with you anymore. So sure, let's go right ahead, but I'm warning you, I'm starting to think that everything in this universe is based on what I'm calling "string theory" and it's 100% untestable. So suck it.
One of the (smaller) reasons I dropped out of the ChemE degree I was pursuing was because one day in one of my classes, there was a number written on the board. We asked the prof what it was, and his reply was "That's the ideal gas constant, R. I wrote it there because we'll be using it today". We looked at him funny and said "No it's not. We use R all the time, and it's not that". "Well.... yes it is, but this is the value of R in the units atmosphere gallons per lbmol rankine."
While I appreciate the value of being metrically multilingual, for some reason that just seems horribly *wrong*.
Slashdot Mirror
131 F seems like it would leave a lot of pathogens alive, but I wonder which ones are on their "no go" list? This could be a great way for non-cannibals to get to have the experience of Kuru.
Also curious: I know that human *waste* can't be used as fertilizer for "certified organic" foods, but what about actual humans?
Damn, that's depressing. I'm depressed and lonely. If only I used social media, I'd at least have a way to be less depressed and lonely by stopping. But I don't, so I guess I'm stuck this way.
I have a very common name, and I get misdirected e-mail from all over the world.
Fairly frequently, I'll reply to let the sender know that they've got the wrong e-mail address.
Once it was billing info from a phone company that had the recipient's phone number, so I texted her to let her know she'd put in the wrong e-mail address when she signed up for her phone.
Sometimes they're commercial e-mail with a valid "unsubscribe" link, so that's nice.
The most frustrating ones though, are commercial e-mail without a useful reply-to, where the unsubscribe link needs you to log in. But it's not my account, so I can't do that... though there is a "reset your password" option, which I technically could use, since it would send an e-mail to *me*. I haven't done that, but it always makes me wonder, if I did, would I be breaking the law? Because I did "hack" that account. But does the account really "belong" to the person who created it, or does it belong to the person who receives the e-mail that the account is associated to?
Personally, I'd be a little terrified to meet the mammal that secretes milk glass. Fortunately, the FDA probably won't come after that one, as if you're eating milk glass, you have other more serious problems that need immediate attention.
So this article went in a different way than I assumed based on the headline.
I had interpreted it as being able to tell Google Assistant "Hey, call Comcast Tech support and get them to fix my internet" (which, of course, you'd ask Google Assistant on your phone, since your home internet is broken) and then just forget about it until you get a message from Google the next day saying "I spent 15 hours on hold and went through twelve layers of tech support escalation, but finally found someone who wasn't a moron and your internet should be working now."
And I'm just saying that's the kind of technology that I'd love to see come out of Google.
Of course, the danger for Google is that people will figure out that they can say "OK Google, call YouTube and find out why my video got demonetized.", but I get the impression that Google is big enough that they've passed that threshold of "The right hand doesn't know which foot the left is shooting."
"citing minimal reports of euphoria in patients who took the drug in clinical studies."
This is, of course, after controlling for the natural euphoria that comes from not having seizures.
...a competent motorist in the driving seat who can react appropriately to the road ahead.
Really? That's a requirement? Have you been out on the roads recently? Do you have an estimate for the percentage of cars on the road today that have this "feature"? I don't think it's as common as you might suspect, and hasn't been for... well, since the invention of the automobile.
Simple solution: Turn your laptop sideways.
Now, I'm joking, but honestly, that's an option with phones, and it's frequently an option with desktop monitors (the one I'm looking at now does this). This seems like a great option, as wide screens are (or at least seem to be) really good for gaming and watching video, but tall screens are better for reading or editing documents.
The only problem, of course, is that on a laptop, you have a keyboard attached to your screen, and one of those orientations is going to be awkward to type on.
One solution would be a detachable screen that could connect at either of two sides. There is the possibility of misplacing your screen, but on the other hand, it should make replacing a broken screen far simpler. That seems like a pretty ideal solution to me. Don't know if there are any out there. If not, there should be.
Maybe 5% of the world's population is just holding their breath?
I'm kind of curious, are doors in California required to have warnings along the lines of "Warning: outside contains sunlight, which is known to the state of California to cause cancer."?
granted, I of course haven't read TFA, but considering that, as a general rule, tuition rates have increased far faster than, say, professor pay scales, why are there cash-strapped higher education institutions? Or is it that there do exist higher ed institutions that are financially responsible and have reasonable tuition, which in turn drives away students who want to spend tons of "free" loan money at more interesting colleges, and this is a group of investors looking to "fix" that "problem"?
Here's my proposed compromise: Keep the "fall back", but get rid of the "spring forward". Sure, it might take some getting used to, but I'm sure we'd manage it sometime over the next 24 years or so.
If you think that's bad, you should see the hourly rate made by people selling stuff on Etsy.
factoring in cost of materials, I'm pretty sure some people there are making a negative per-hour income.
I understand that AI can be really smart, that sensors are really good at seeing objects, predicting collisions, reading road signs, that sort of thing, and they have the distinct advantage that they're always on, always looking in every direction, and don't get distracted. However, the one thing I cannot fathom being possible in a car at this level of autonomy is being able to handle a cop in an intersection directing traffic. I'm a human (at least according to CAPTCHAs), and humans are notorious for their ability to see patterns and derive meaning even when there isn't anything there, but sometimes even I have a really hard time figuring out what a cop directing traffic wants me to do. Are you saying go? Stop? Wait a second? Are you even trying to communicate with me, or someone else near me? Or maybe you're just throwing up random gang signs because you got bored?
That's honestly a really huge step in autonomy. Removing the steering wheel and pedals means you've increased confidence in your AI from being able to handle 99.999% of situations to being able to handle 100% of situations.
But what I want is an all-inclusive term that includes homemakers, caregivers, and people who work jobs with taxable incomes. "Employed" doesn't seem to cut it. "Really busy right now" is probably accurate, but doesn't flow trippingly from the tongue. "useful" and "productive" are also probably accurate, but a bit judgmental. I just really would like a better word.
Just because accepted definitions are widely used, doesn't mean that they're particularly useful. Personally, I'd love to either see employment redefined or a new term coined that includes people who "work at home to look after their family", but that would be a step towards exposing the huge gaping marriage loophole in tax law, and I think everyone is either terrified of that, or has never really considered it.
Cash can be slightly dangerous. It's a much better vector for the spread of diseases than plastic, or NFC. Getting mugged is very bad, but very rare. Getting the flu is probably less bad, but much more common.
You can observe a correlation between long hours and success, and try to achieve success via long hours, which will lead to burnout, but not necessarily to success.
Let me put it this way: There's a strong correlation between extremely financially successful companies and ownership of corporate jets. Does that mean that your struggling company should pool all its cash to buy a corporate jet, so that it'll become successful? Clearly, no.
Let me posit, that if you really love what you're doing so much that you can't stand the thought of *not* putting every hour, minute, and second that you possibly can into doing that thing you love so much, then there's a better-than-average chance that it'll be successful (and you with it).
Putting in a ton of hours will most likely lead to *either* success *or* burnout. If your goal in putting in those hours is success, the more likely outcome is burnout. If the hours are an enjoyable goal on their own, then success will be a by-product of that pursuit.
Not just that, but (and I realize this is more pertinent to investments than to savings accounts) heart surgery does not have emergent behaviors based on the choices of heart surgeons. Financial decisions do. If every heart surgeon simultaneously decides that (I don't know jack about heart surgery) clamping a certain artery in a certain way during surgery is the best choice, they may or may not be right, but the fact that they're all making that choice won't change how right or wrong it is. If every retirement savings plan simultaneously decides that the best place to store your money is to invest it in stock from International Widgets Inc., then, well, that's probably good for the first people to do so, but might not be so great for everyone else.
A long time ago, I recall reading about the theory of negative mass, and if I recall correctly, it should allow for the creation of pseudo-reactionless drives. Technically, it isn't reactionless because it's obeying all the laws of reaction drives, it's just that f=ma gets weird when m0.
So if you have a ship that contains equal parts mass and negative mass, its "total mass" will be 0, and any force applied to it will instantly accelerate it to lightspeed.
It's always been one of those things I assumed would be permanently theoretical. If they actually made some, that's absolutely fascinating.
My research suggests that starting *anything* after 11:00 AM greatly improves... whatever it is you're starting.
Except coffee. Coffee should be started earlier.
So what you're saying, is that conservatives who come from other social media sites to post on twitter, they're....
undocumented immigrants to twitter?
Interesting...
If you don't use a VPN, your data is vulnerable to your ISP. If you do use a VPN, your data is vulnerable to your VPN provider *and* to *their* ISP.
Maybe they've got a better (in terms of privacy) ISP than you do. But be aware that that is also a concern.
Not to say that there's any sort of scientific or evidence-based reason to believe the simulation theory, but really, who among us can't envision the following scenario:
GM: welcome all, I hope you enjoy playing in this universe I've created. I've been working on it for the last 14 billion years, and I think it's pretty awesome. Now, I've provided you all with the complete set of rules for this universe, but it can get complicated at times, and I'm sure you haven't read through all of them and that's fine. {chuckle}. So, Bob, what character class will you be rolling tonight?
Bob: Scientist.
GM: Really? You don't want to play something more interesting, like maybe Prophet, Eccentric Billionaire, World Leader, maybe we could even make up some sort of weird hybrid class?
Bob: Scientist.
GM: OK, well whatever floats your boat. Now, what's your character doing?
Bob: shining a laser through two slits and looking at the pattern the light makes behind them.
GM: Uhhhhh.... OK, you see the interference pattern that the light waves make.
Bob: Really? I do? Because I remember reading in your rule book about how "light" in your universe is conveyed by these "photon" particles. Wanna explain how these particles are making interference patterns?
GM: {sigh} Fuck you Bob. I'm just trying to run a fun game here. Why do you have to bring your rules-lawyering BS to every damn session? I mean, seriously you guys are no fun. Whatever. I'm retconning everything so that light is now a wavicle that's a wave until you look at it, when it becomes a particle. Happy now?
Bob: OK. My character is now going to invent a new branch of scientific research to study the underlying forces of the universe.
GM: This is gonna suck. I mean really, my last group was *so* much more fun. I could just plop down some burning shrubbery and have it tell them things and they'd be all like "sure, that's cool." and run with it. I don't even know why I game with you anymore. So sure, let's go right ahead, but I'm warning you, I'm starting to think that everything in this universe is based on what I'm calling "string theory" and it's 100% untestable. So suck it.
One of the (smaller) reasons I dropped out of the ChemE degree I was pursuing was because one day in one of my classes, there was a number written on the board. We asked the prof what it was, and his reply was "That's the ideal gas constant, R. I wrote it there because we'll be using it today". We looked at him funny and said "No it's not. We use R all the time, and it's not that". "Well.... yes it is, but this is the value of R in the units atmosphere gallons per lbmol rankine."
While I appreciate the value of being metrically multilingual, for some reason that just seems horribly *wrong*.