Given that the bay is 400-1600 sq. miles (depends what you count as part of the bay). 400 sq mile is 11,151,360,000 sq ft. So 650,000 cu ft/sec corresponds to a rise of 5.83e-6 ft/sec -- about 2 inches for a 24 hours period. Maybe they won't have an immediate emergency if they fall behind just a little in their rate of pumping.
That's just one inlet, don't forget to add in the square mileage from all of the cities that dump their storm drains into the bay, rain entering the bay from other, smaller waterways, as well as rain falling on the bay directly - Sandy dumped 8 - 12" of rain in many places. So if you close the gates 2 days before the surge hits you may have a few feet of water behind the gates before the surge even comes.
Without truly massive pumps it's not going to work because the Bay doesn't just receive water from the ocean, but also from the Sacramento River and other minor waterways (plus storm drain runoff from most cities by the Bay).
The Sacramento River peak volume during a flood event (such as might be seen during a tropical storm with heavy rainfall) is 650,000 cubic feet/second (18,000 m^3/sec). The pumps are going to have to pump at least that much water up over the sea wall or the Bay is going to fill up from behind.
NYC faces the same problem with any Sea Wall plan - the Hudson and East Rivers are going to fill in the sea behind the sea wall, so even though the Sea Wall might keep out a high storm surge, you can't keep it closed for long or you'll be flooded anyway.
If he turns it off, then what will generate the alarm? Such a system relies on running software, if its not running then it can't work, and someone with admin privileges can easily kill it. Or the admin can access the data at a level below the os, ie directly from the physical drive without the os running.
When the monitoring/logging software stops sending packets back to the monitoring server, that sets off the alarms.
If he opens a raw device for reading, that gets logged by the operating system too.
Data on the drives is encrypted, and you don't give the decryption keys to the sysadming group, they are held by a separate data security group.
Thing is, what happens when someone decides to stand in front of an auto cab in order to cause a denial of service attack? The car won't run you over and will probably be programmed to take no action that it can reasonably predict will harm a human including trying to get around you.
How is that different than standing in front of a cab with a human driver? Either the driver (or car) will back up and maneuver around you, or the driver and/or car will call dispatch (or the police) to say he's blocked in. Human drivers are (normally) programmed to take no action that can be reasonably predicted to harm a human, but turning around or otherwise maneuvering to get around an obstacle (even a human obstacle) is not necessarily going to trigger that response.
How do you propose keeping a sysadmin that needs root access to do their job from being able to copy something to a thumb drive? You can ban thumb drives, but then they could just write the files to a different server that they can access from home. If someone needs root access for their job, there's no amount of security that can keep them from either copying secrets or breaking the system if they're so inclined. The only solution is hiring trustworthy admins.
You log his access, with logs monitored by a separate auditing group that the sysadmin has no access to. If he tries to tamper with the audit logging or turns it off, it generates an immediate alarm and someone comes to find out why. If he accesses data outside of normal access patterns, this sets off alarms too.
Make it illegal to send a text if you know the recipient is driving. Now you gotta prove to a court of law that the sender knew. But it's easy to prove the driver was texting by checking phone records. But no, we don't want to do that, because it would imply making it illegal to text while driving.
Many places have already made it illegal to text while driving. They are just existing the liability to the other party of the conversation when that party has knowingly participated in the illegal texting, at the very least as an accessory to the crime itself.
Just because I send someone a text message doesn't mean that I'm forcing them to read it while driving. I'll often text my wife when I know she's driving home because I want to send it to her before *I* start driving. Something like "Hey sweetie, after your aerobics class can you pick up milk at the store?" or "I'm going to the gym after work so I'll be home late, go ahead and eat dinner without me".
I don't need or expect her to read the SMS's while she's driving, so why should I be responsible if she does? I paid for the car that she's driving that's capable of traveling at well over 100mph - if she goes over the speed limit and gets into an accident am I responsible for not speed-limiting the car?
In the real world, developers must have access to the RTM bits before [general availability].
I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but is this really true? As long as Microsoft has tested and is certain of backwards compatibility, then it doesn't matter.
He said "real world". There's no such thing as 100% backwards compatibility in the real world -- every bug fix and api update introduces a potential incompatibility for a developer that inadvertently (or even intentionally) relied on the previous behavior.
In any case, who are these devs and why are they so irate? There's nothing at work worth getting emotional about. It's just work.
It's not just "work", it's lost revenue from customers that can't get your software to work, extra staffing costs to answer emails and phone calls from customers reporting problems, and hours of extra overtime work trying to fix a problem in a few days when you normally would have had 2 weeks to fix it.
Can you please explain why developers need the early access? Is Windows 8.1 not backwards compatible? If it's not available to devs prior to GA will the users end up spending several months being able to do nothing but play solitaire? What is the significance of a third-party piece of software being GA on the exact day as the OS it targets?
Backwards compatible is not always backwards compatible, I haven't written MS software in ages but plenty of things behave differently with new releases and SP's - sometimes bugs that your software has been written to work around have been "fixed", which then makes your workaround fail... Maybe your software doesn't use any of those bits, or maybe it makes your software crash upon startup. The only way to know is to run it against the same release that consumers are getting.
so Microsoft wants only the agile and extreme to survive, while the slackers get left behind. makes sense to me.
Sounds more to me like Microsoft is making consumers be beta testers for all of the 3rd party software out there, and putting a much higher support burden on the independent software developers since they can't test their software on the released OS until the public does.
Also, the fact that many open source projects are basically volunteer efforts means that they aren't really setup to pay people for their work. They would have to work out the taxes and it could end up being a relatively huge amount of effort for a fairly small payoff ($5,000 covers a developer for maybe a month).
This is probably the biggest problem... taxes and logistics of distributing the money. Someone has to be approved by all of the co-developers to accept the money on their behalf, pay taxes and distribute the proceeds equitably (how? 1099? That's even more paperwork). If there are 10 regular developers, that's $500 each, minus taxes, so around $300. Probably not worth the effort or political problems "Hey, Developer X contributed twice as many lines of code as Developer Y. So X should get more money than Y. But Developer Z created the entire code base the project was based on 2 years ago, so he should get the most money."
Maybe they could have become a member of EFF, the Open Source Initiative, The Linux Foundation or some larger organization like that without it appearing as a donation. These places must have run into this situation before and have a way to deal with it appropriately.
If the government wants to pass ineffectual laws that have no hope at stopping what they are aimed at, then how about passing a law that punishes those that are supposed to be protecting our "secret" data? Why could a low level analyst working for a contractor in Hawaii have so much unfettered access to classified data that he could download thousands of documents and walk the data out of the facility with no one being aware.
There are plenty of ways that this could have been prevented with better access controls and auditing -- even the server admins shouldn't be able to bypass the audit system, and the audit system should have raised alarms when it saw so many docs being downloaded.
It adds cost and complexity to the system (like it means that an agent can't follow up leads on his own, but has to submit a request for access to records, while documenting why the data is needed), but it not only helps keep the secret data away from whistle blowers and curious agents that want to look up their ex-gf's, but also against foreign spies that have infiltrated the agency.
No they didn't lie. You can set things up that way-simply set up your servers in multiple data centers(AWS availability zones) and load balance between them. It's foolish to just throw things up in the cloud and think magically I won't ever have to worry about downtime ever again.
But that was one of the big promises of "the cloud": that you'd never have to worry about the nitty-gritty of network administration again, your provider would handle all that for you.
There are many different flavors of "cloud" computing - if you throw your app at a cloud provider and blindly expect them to make it highly available, then you'll get what you deserve. There is no end of cloud solution providers that will be happy to help you architect your app for whatever level of redundancy you want. But it's not going to be free.
Amazon does let you get rid of your network admin and concentrate on managing the servers. No need to worry about BGP, buying bandwidth from multiple redundant providers, buying and administering your own firewalls, network switches, routers, etc.
But you still have to manage your servers. Amazon will help you with multi-AZ redundancy for things like MySQL.
If that isn't the case, then you gain nothing and might as well host the data yourself.
That's depends heavily on your use case. If you have a relatively small number of servers, or have large demand spikes, Amazon can be much more cost effective than hosting your own servers. If you have hundreds of servers and keep them busy all the time, you can probably save money by doing it yourself.
But if you have dozens of servers, then it's likely that you'll save money with Amazon over buying your own servers, network gear, a SAN, backup solution, hardware service contracts, etc.
But you have to architect your application properly. We have our core servers split across multiple AZ's with the database replicated across those AZ's. We don't trust our failover/failback scripts enough to make it automatic, so we have a simple web interface to let anyone on the tech team do the failover. The only impact we saw in this outage was higher latency and timeouts to some of our app servers, but our database was not in the affected zone, and Amazon's load balancer correctly routed traffic to the servers in the good AZ.
Additionally, we have a warm spare running in a different region - the servers are kept up to date with data, but they are running in smaller instance types than we need to run our app, do to a regional failover, we'd have to reboot them into larger instance types (our app startup scripts already tune memory parameters to take advantage of the greater amounts of RAM in the larger instances), then repoint DNS.
I think they are talking about using a fucking up 3 finger keyboard shortcut to do what any Gecko or Chromium based browser does with a right click. Why on earth you'd want to go through a 3 finger keyboard shortcut when its just right click>reopen closed tab and unlike the 3 finger bullshit you can undo as many levels as you want, all the way back to when you opened the browser.
I'll probably get hate for saying this but "keyboard commanders" seem to think its some great accomplishment when they trip over some funky fucked up keyboard shortcut and when they point it out a good 90% of the time I have to reply with "Uhhh...you know there is a button that will do that, right? See just click here, no need to twist your fingers into pretzels when there is a GUI button right there" but then they get all pissy, like we should all be amazed at the fact they can twist their fingers into pretzels to do what the rest of us can do with a single click of the mouse in the right place.;
I can press a 3 finger key sequence a lot faster and easier than moving the mouse to the narrow tab bar at the top of the browser window, right clicking, scrolling to the right menu entry (in Chrome, if you right click on a tab, it's the 6th entry on the list, if you right click on an empty space on the tab bar, it's the 2nd), and then clicking it.
Do you actually find it easier to use the mouse to do this? But then, usually when I inadvertently close a tab, it's because I hit Ctrl-W, so my hands are already on the keyboard.
Were they highly trained survivalists? Sorry, but they called off the search for a reason.
They called off the search because statistically it's unlikely that anyone could have survived at sea that long.
But if it were my loved ones, without proof that they died at sea, I'd still hold out the hope that perhaps they washed up on an island somewhere and are living in Gilligan's Island style Tiki huts.
This is a private effort, so you don't have to participate if you don't want to.
Tesla is not a good choice for someone who wants to save money.
Newsflash: people buying luxury items are not trying to save money, they just want the best stuff
Newsflash: I'm not the one that claimed that a Tesla is no more expensive then a "more reasonably priced car". I quoted the parent poster right in my reply:
The Model S starts in the $60k range and for many people who finance and factor in the gas savings monthly the payments are equivalent to that of more reasonably priced car right out the door. Also Tesla has stated that they are planning a more mass market mid-priced car in 2-3 years.
The British police did not destroy the newspaper's hard drives. They just watched and took notes and photos while the paper's people destroyed the hard drives. This in no way justifies the actions of the British government, which are completely reprehensible.
I agree with Dan Tynan. Future leaks will be dumped without regard for how much they might hurt individuals or groups only peripherally involved. In a surveillance culture, that may be the only way whistleblowers can continue to do what is right.
What is the point of that distinction? Does it matter at *all* whether the government agents destroyed the drives themselves, or coerced the owners of the drives to do it?
These things are a menace. I lived in Colorado and they would routinely plant themselves into our apartment complex public space, making it unusable for long stretches of winter.
If *you* think it's unusable now, how do you think the Geese feel about an apartment complex taking over *their* public space?
.
Actually the geese were not there before the apartment complex was built, building code in many areas requires a retaining pond for the down spout water to collect and naturally be absorbed into the ground. Geese love these ponds and will nest all around them.
Ahh so humans created an inviting environment for them and now are complaining because the geese accepted the invitation and are using the nice facilities provided for them?
Whoa, whoa, whoa, you're trying to tell me that spending $100k on a personal vehicle is not, I repeat not a good way to save money? That instead I could buy a mass-production union-labor-build-quality crush-over-your-forehead-after-5-years-and-get-a-new-one disposable POS for $8k?
That wasn't my idea, you'd have to go back to the previous poster who said that a Tesla is the same price as a reasonably priced car when you factor in all of the gasoline savings. I just gave the numbers for an unreasonably priced $30K car to show that even if electricity was free and gas cost $5, it'd take 10 years to pay back the increased price of the Tesla.
I don't know where you'll get a disposable car for $8K, but If you buy any mainstream $20K car, it'll last you for 10 years and 200,000 miles.
What if my priorities are to not use oil and gas in my car;
Then I'd say that you have misplaced priorities and are more interested in making people think you care about reducing fossil fuel use than actually doing so. If reducing fossil fuel use is your goal, then use a bicycle, a motorcycle or even a hybrid, not an expensive $100,000 car with a 1000 lb battery pack.
It's reasonable to assume that future technology (look at 500 or even 5000 years ahead) can be so advanced that it can successfully defreeze someone, especially if they are frozen immediately after 'death'. A rabbit kidney has apparently been "completely vitrified to solid state at 135C, rewarmed and transplanted to a rabbit with complete viability".
Even if you assume it's possible (a *big* assumption), the bigger question is *why* would society want to thaw someone from our time 500 or even 5000 years ahead? Sure, there might be enough scientific curiosity to thaw a few of us just to talk with us to find out what life was really like back in 2020, but why would they want to thaw hundreds or thousands of people who are jobless with no family or means to support themselves, and will need extensive education and rehabilitation to re-enter society?
In an apparent about-face, San Francisco Fire Department officials said Monday they will revisit restrictions on firefighters' use of helmet-mounted cameras after concluding that footage from the Asiana Airlines crash showed the value of the devices.
These things are a menace. I lived in Colorado and they would routinely plant themselves into our apartment complex public space, making it unusable for long stretches of winter.
If *you* think it's unusable now, how do you think the Geese feel about an apartment complex taking over *their* public space?
If you were stupid enough to wander into the park area, a host of them would waddle up to you and attack, and they left a huge amount of green goose crap all over the place. If I had thought of using one of those little toy helicopters at the time to scare em off, I would have.
I think the problem with the drone plan is that just like how the Geese got used to humans in your apartment complex and now show no fear of them, they'll eventually get used to the drones unless the drones start attacking and killing them.
You're making a LOT of big assumptions there, depending GREATLY on where you live:
Yes, I stated my assumptions. Feel free to replace with your own.
Cost of maintenance for both cars is similar
Wow, that is a BIG assumption right there. Pretty sure a Tesla dealership is going to charge considerably more for maintenance than a local garage. And very few local garages around here can work on Teslas.
The Honda garage is not exactly cheap either, and someone that buys a $30K Honda is probably not going to care about saving a few dollars by going to a local garage, at least not while the car is new. Even though local garages may not have the knowledge and tools to work on EV's today, they probably will in the future (or eventually go out of business)
The Tesla battery lasts for 10 years + 150,000 miles
You ever had a cellphone battery last for 10 years without degrading?
Sorry, but color me skeptical.
Actually, that's the least wild of my assumptions - Tesla provides an 8 year 125K battery warranty on the low end battery and 8 year unlimited miles on the larger batteries. So getting 10 years out of it is probably not out of the question.
His calculation is even using the very low mileage of 15k miles. Use a more mid range value of 30k miles and you are in the 5 year break even point. Nice.
30,000 miles/year is the "mid range"? I used 15K since that's what AAA uses for an average driver. I can't find any good statistics for the USA in general, but in Florida,the average is 13K miles/year
I can't believe that 30,000 miles/year is the national average - that's 80 miles/day (or 120 miles for each business day) which seems absudly high in a nation with an average commute distance of 12 miles.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that the bay is 400-1600 sq. miles (depends what you count as part of the bay). 400 sq mile is 11,151,360,000 sq ft. So 650,000 cu ft/sec corresponds to a rise of 5.83e-6 ft/sec -- about 2 inches for a 24 hours period. Maybe they won't have an immediate emergency if they fall behind just a little in their rate of pumping.
That's just one inlet, don't forget to add in the square mileage from all of the cities that dump their storm drains into the bay, rain entering the bay from other, smaller waterways, as well as rain falling on the bay directly - Sandy dumped 8 - 12" of rain in many places. So if you close the gates 2 days before the surge hits you may have a few feet of water behind the gates before the surge even comes.
Without truly massive pumps it's not going to work because the Bay doesn't just receive water from the ocean, but also from the Sacramento River and other minor waterways (plus storm drain runoff from most cities by the Bay).
The Sacramento River peak volume during a flood event (such as might be seen during a tropical storm with heavy rainfall) is 650,000 cubic feet/second (18,000 m^3/sec). The pumps are going to have to pump at least that much water up over the sea wall or the Bay is going to fill up from behind.
NYC faces the same problem with any Sea Wall plan - the Hudson and East Rivers are going to fill in the sea behind the sea wall, so even though the Sea Wall might keep out a high storm surge, you can't keep it closed for long or you'll be flooded anyway.
If he turns it off, then what will generate the alarm?
Such a system relies on running software, if its not running then it can't work, and someone with admin privileges can easily kill it.
Or the admin can access the data at a level below the os, ie directly from the physical drive without the os running.
When the monitoring/logging software stops sending packets back to the monitoring server, that sets off the alarms.
If he opens a raw device for reading, that gets logged by the operating system too.
Data on the drives is encrypted, and you don't give the decryption keys to the sysadming group, they are held by a separate data security group.
Thing is, what happens when someone decides to stand in front of an auto cab in order to cause a denial of service attack? The car won't run you over and will probably be programmed to take no action that it can reasonably predict will harm a human including trying to get around you.
How is that different than standing in front of a cab with a human driver? Either the driver (or car) will back up and maneuver around you, or the driver and/or car will call dispatch (or the police) to say he's blocked in. Human drivers are (normally) programmed to take no action that can be reasonably predicted to harm a human, but turning around or otherwise maneuvering to get around an obstacle (even a human obstacle) is not necessarily going to trigger that response.
How do you propose keeping a sysadmin that needs root access to do their job from being able to copy something to a thumb drive? You can ban thumb drives, but then they could just write the files to a different server that they can access from home. If someone needs root access for their job, there's no amount of security that can keep them from either copying secrets or breaking the system if they're so inclined. The only solution is hiring trustworthy admins.
You log his access, with logs monitored by a separate auditing group that the sysadmin has no access to. If he tries to tamper with the audit logging or turns it off, it generates an immediate alarm and someone comes to find out why. If he accesses data outside of normal access patterns, this sets off alarms too.
Make it illegal to send a text if you know the recipient is driving. Now you gotta prove to a court of law that the sender knew. But it's easy to prove the driver was texting by checking phone records. But no, we don't want to do that, because it would imply making it illegal to text while driving.
Many places have already made it illegal to text while driving. They are just existing the liability to the other party of the conversation when that party has knowingly participated in the illegal texting, at the very least as an accessory to the crime itself.
Just because I send someone a text message doesn't mean that I'm forcing them to read it while driving. I'll often text my wife when I know she's driving home because I want to send it to her before *I* start driving. Something like "Hey sweetie, after your aerobics class can you pick up milk at the store?" or "I'm going to the gym after work so I'll be home late, go ahead and eat dinner without me".
I don't need or expect her to read the SMS's while she's driving, so why should I be responsible if she does? I paid for the car that she's driving that's capable of traveling at well over 100mph - if she goes over the speed limit and gets into an accident am I responsible for not speed-limiting the car?
In the real world, developers must have access to the RTM bits before [general availability].
I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but is this really true? As long as Microsoft has tested and is certain of backwards compatibility, then it doesn't matter.
He said "real world". There's no such thing as 100% backwards compatibility in the real world -- every bug fix and api update introduces a potential incompatibility for a developer that inadvertently (or even intentionally) relied on the previous behavior.
In any case, who are these devs and why are they so irate? There's nothing at work worth getting emotional about. It's just work.
It's not just "work", it's lost revenue from customers that can't get your software to work, extra staffing costs to answer emails and phone calls from customers reporting problems, and hours of extra overtime work trying to fix a problem in a few days when you normally would have had 2 weeks to fix it.
Can you please explain why developers need the early access? Is Windows 8.1 not backwards compatible? If it's not available to devs prior to GA will the users end up spending several months being able to do nothing but play solitaire? What is the significance of a third-party piece of software being GA on the exact day as the OS it targets?
Backwards compatible is not always backwards compatible, I haven't written MS software in ages but plenty of things behave differently with new releases and SP's - sometimes bugs that your software has been written to work around have been "fixed", which then makes your workaround fail... Maybe your software doesn't use any of those bits, or maybe it makes your software crash upon startup. The only way to know is to run it against the same release that consumers are getting.
so Microsoft wants only the agile and extreme to survive, while the slackers get left behind. makes sense to me.
Sounds more to me like Microsoft is making consumers be beta testers for all of the 3rd party software out there, and putting a much higher support burden on the independent software developers since they can't test their software on the released OS until the public does.
Also, the fact that many open source projects are basically volunteer efforts means that they aren't really setup to pay people for their work. They would have to work out the taxes and it could end up being a relatively huge amount of effort for a fairly small payoff ($5,000 covers a developer for maybe a month).
This is probably the biggest problem... taxes and logistics of distributing the money. Someone has to be approved by all of the co-developers to accept the money on their behalf, pay taxes and distribute the proceeds equitably (how? 1099? That's even more paperwork). If there are 10 regular developers, that's $500 each, minus taxes, so around $300. Probably not worth the effort or political problems "Hey, Developer X contributed twice as many lines of code as Developer Y. So X should get more money than Y. But Developer Z created the entire code base the project was based on 2 years ago, so he should get the most money."
Maybe they could have become a member of EFF, the Open Source Initiative, The Linux Foundation or some larger organization like that without it appearing as a donation. These places must have run into this situation before and have a way to deal with it appropriately.
If the government wants to pass ineffectual laws that have no hope at stopping what they are aimed at, then how about passing a law that punishes those that are supposed to be protecting our "secret" data? Why could a low level analyst working for a contractor in Hawaii have so much unfettered access to classified data that he could download thousands of documents and walk the data out of the facility with no one being aware.
There are plenty of ways that this could have been prevented with better access controls and auditing -- even the server admins shouldn't be able to bypass the audit system, and the audit system should have raised alarms when it saw so many docs being downloaded.
It adds cost and complexity to the system (like it means that an agent can't follow up leads on his own, but has to submit a request for access to records, while documenting why the data is needed), but it not only helps keep the secret data away from whistle blowers and curious agents that want to look up their ex-gf's, but also against foreign spies that have infiltrated the agency.
It's bad enough to have April Fools come once a year and have to wade through the fake posts, but it's far from April 1st.
From TFA: "Dispatch From The Future: Uber To Purchase 2,500 Driverless Cars From Google July 25, 2023 "
No they didn't lie. You can set things up that way-simply set up your servers in multiple data centers(AWS availability zones) and load balance between them. It's foolish to just throw things up in the cloud and think magically I won't ever have to worry about downtime ever again.
But that was one of the big promises of "the cloud": that you'd never have to worry about the nitty-gritty of network administration again, your provider would handle all that for you.
There are many different flavors of "cloud" computing - if you throw your app at a cloud provider and blindly expect them to make it highly available, then you'll get what you deserve. There is no end of cloud solution providers that will be happy to help you architect your app for whatever level of redundancy you want. But it's not going to be free.
Amazon does let you get rid of your network admin and concentrate on managing the servers. No need to worry about BGP, buying bandwidth from multiple redundant providers, buying and administering your own firewalls, network switches, routers, etc.
But you still have to manage your servers. Amazon will help you with multi-AZ redundancy for things like MySQL.
If that isn't the case, then you gain nothing and might as well host the data yourself.
That's depends heavily on your use case. If you have a relatively small number of servers, or have large demand spikes, Amazon can be much more cost effective than hosting your own servers. If you have hundreds of servers and keep them busy all the time, you can probably save money by doing it yourself.
But if you have dozens of servers, then it's likely that you'll save money with Amazon over buying your own servers, network gear, a SAN, backup solution, hardware service contracts, etc.
But you have to architect your application properly. We have our core servers split across multiple AZ's with the database replicated across those AZ's. We don't trust our failover/failback scripts enough to make it automatic, so we have a simple web interface to let anyone on the tech team do the failover. The only impact we saw in this outage was higher latency and timeouts to some of our app servers, but our database was not in the affected zone, and Amazon's load balancer correctly routed traffic to the servers in the good AZ.
Additionally, we have a warm spare running in a different region - the servers are kept up to date with data, but they are running in smaller instance types than we need to run our app, do to a regional failover, we'd have to reboot them into larger instance types (our app startup scripts already tune memory parameters to take advantage of the greater amounts of RAM in the larger instances), then repoint DNS.
I think they are talking about using a fucking up 3 finger keyboard shortcut to do what any Gecko or Chromium based browser does with a right click. Why on earth you'd want to go through a 3 finger keyboard shortcut when its just right click>reopen closed tab and unlike the 3 finger bullshit you can undo as many levels as you want, all the way back to when you opened the browser.
I'll probably get hate for saying this but "keyboard commanders" seem to think its some great accomplishment when they trip over some funky fucked up keyboard shortcut and when they point it out a good 90% of the time I have to reply with "Uhhh...you know there is a button that will do that, right? See just click here, no need to twist your fingers into pretzels when there is a GUI button right there" but then they get all pissy, like we should all be amazed at the fact they can twist their fingers into pretzels to do what the rest of us can do with a single click of the mouse in the right place.;
I can press a 3 finger key sequence a lot faster and easier than moving the mouse to the narrow tab bar at the top of the browser window, right clicking, scrolling to the right menu entry (in Chrome, if you right click on a tab, it's the 6th entry on the list, if you right click on an empty space on the tab bar, it's the 2nd), and then clicking it.
Do you actually find it easier to use the mouse to do this? But then, usually when I inadvertently close a tab, it's because I hit Ctrl-W, so my hands are already on the keyboard.
Were they highly trained survivalists? Sorry, but they called off the search for a reason.
They called off the search because statistically it's unlikely that anyone could have survived at sea that long.
But if it were my loved ones, without proof that they died at sea, I'd still hold out the hope that perhaps they washed up on an island somewhere and are living in Gilligan's Island style Tiki huts.
This is a private effort, so you don't have to participate if you don't want to.
Done and done: see Demolition Man
I'd really rather not.
Tesla is not a good choice for someone who wants to save money.
Newsflash: people buying luxury items are not trying to save money, they just want the best stuff
Newsflash: I'm not the one that claimed that a Tesla is no more expensive then a "more reasonably priced car". I quoted the parent poster right in my reply:
The Model S starts in the $60k range and for many people who finance and factor in the gas savings monthly the payments are equivalent to that of more reasonably priced car right out the door. Also Tesla has stated that they are planning a more mass market mid-priced car in 2-3 years.
The British police did not destroy the newspaper's hard drives. They just watched and took notes and photos while the paper's people destroyed the hard drives. This in no way justifies the actions of the British government, which are completely reprehensible.
I agree with Dan Tynan. Future leaks will be dumped without regard for how much they might hurt individuals or groups only peripherally involved. In a surveillance culture, that may be the only way whistleblowers can continue to do what is right.
What is the point of that distinction? Does it matter at *all* whether the government agents destroyed the drives themselves, or coerced the owners of the drives to do it?
These things are a menace. I lived in Colorado and they would routinely plant themselves into our apartment complex public space, making it unusable for long stretches of winter.
If *you* think it's unusable now, how do you think the Geese feel about an apartment complex taking over *their* public space?
.
Actually the geese were not there before the apartment complex was built, building code in many areas requires a retaining pond for the down spout water to collect and naturally be absorbed into the ground. Geese love these ponds and will nest all around them.
Ahh so humans created an inviting environment for them and now are complaining because the geese accepted the invitation and are using the nice facilities provided for them?
Whoa, whoa, whoa, you're trying to tell me that spending $100k on a personal vehicle is not, I repeat not a good way to save money? That instead I could buy a mass-production union-labor-build-quality crush-over-your-forehead-after-5-years-and-get-a-new-one disposable POS for $8k?
That wasn't my idea, you'd have to go back to the previous poster who said that a Tesla is the same price as a reasonably priced car when you factor in all of the gasoline savings. I just gave the numbers for an unreasonably priced $30K car to show that even if electricity was free and gas cost $5, it'd take 10 years to pay back the increased price of the Tesla.
I don't know where you'll get a disposable car for $8K, but If you buy any mainstream $20K car, it'll last you for 10 years and 200,000 miles.
What if my priorities are to not use oil and gas in my car;
Then I'd say that you have misplaced priorities and are more interested in making people think you care about reducing fossil fuel use than actually doing so. If reducing fossil fuel use is your goal, then use a bicycle, a motorcycle or even a hybrid, not an expensive $100,000 car with a 1000 lb battery pack.
It's reasonable to assume that future technology (look at 500 or even 5000 years ahead) can be so advanced that it can successfully defreeze someone, especially if they are frozen immediately after 'death'. A rabbit kidney has apparently been "completely vitrified to solid state at 135C, rewarmed and transplanted to a rabbit with complete viability".
Even if you assume it's possible (a *big* assumption), the bigger question is *why* would society want to thaw someone from our time 500 or even 5000 years ahead? Sure, there might be enough scientific curiosity to thaw a few of us just to talk with us to find out what life was really like back in 2020, but why would they want to thaw hundreds or thousands of people who are jobless with no family or means to support themselves, and will need extensive education and rehabilitation to re-enter society?
They (partially) backtracked and may allow cameras:
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SFFD-backtracks-may-allow-helmet-cameras-4744090.php
In an apparent about-face, San Francisco Fire Department officials said Monday they will revisit restrictions on firefighters' use of helmet-mounted cameras after concluding that footage from the Asiana Airlines crash showed the value of the devices.
These things are a menace. I lived in Colorado and they would routinely plant themselves into our apartment complex public space, making it unusable for long stretches of winter.
If *you* think it's unusable now, how do you think the Geese feel about an apartment complex taking over *their* public space?
If you were stupid enough to wander into the park area, a host of them would waddle up to you and attack, and they left a huge amount of green goose crap all over the place. If I had thought of using one of those little toy helicopters at the time to scare em off, I would have.
I think the problem with the drone plan is that just like how the Geese got used to humans in your apartment complex and now show no fear of them, they'll eventually get used to the drones unless the drones start attacking and killing them.
You're making a LOT of big assumptions there, depending GREATLY on where you live:
Yes, I stated my assumptions. Feel free to replace with your own.
Cost of maintenance for both cars is similar
Wow, that is a BIG assumption right there. Pretty sure a Tesla dealership is going to charge considerably more for maintenance than a local garage. And very few local garages around here can work on Teslas.
The Honda garage is not exactly cheap either, and someone that buys a $30K Honda is probably not going to care about saving a few dollars by going to a local garage, at least not while the car is new. Even though local garages may not have the knowledge and tools to work on EV's today, they probably will in the future (or eventually go out of business)
The Tesla battery lasts for 10 years + 150,000 miles
You ever had a cellphone battery last for 10 years without degrading?
Sorry, but color me skeptical.
Actually, that's the least wild of my assumptions - Tesla provides an 8 year 125K battery warranty on the low end battery and 8 year unlimited miles on the larger batteries. So getting 10 years out of it is probably not out of the question.
His calculation is even using the very low mileage of 15k miles. Use a more mid range value of 30k miles and you are in the 5 year break even point. Nice.
30,000 miles/year is the "mid range"? I used 15K since that's what AAA uses for an average driver. I can't find any good statistics for the USA in general, but in Florida,the average is 13K miles/year
I can't believe that 30,000 miles/year is the national average - that's 80 miles/day (or 120 miles for each business day) which seems absudly high in a nation with an average commute distance of 12 miles.