I live in Charlotte, and Google Fiber is on its way here as well as in nearby Raleigh. Lo and behold, I get a notice in the mail last month that TWC is increasing all our plans by 5x capacity, so I went from 20/1 to 100/5 at the same price.
Well, that's great, but...you'll only increase capacity once there's a threat? And its so cheap to do that you'll not increase prices and finish the roll-out less than 6 months from Google's announcement? Really inspires tons of customer loyalty there, Time Warner. Jackasses.
Which brings me to my point: If this rollout by Comcast is true, is someone finally getting out IN FRONT of Google Fiber, not just being a reactionary twit? Maybe, just maybe, someone is learning that customers are switching not only because of your product but because you treat your customers like crap?
I think I'm too idealistic. That would make way too much sense for the telcos to think of it.
There is no threat of Google Fiber or any other fiber service. Comcast and ATT are the only games in town. Comcast has doubled my speed twice in the last year without increasing my cost. I think I am getting 100/20 now, but I can't remember exactly. While I have no doubt that this is due to Google Fiber threats in other markets, it appears that Comcast has decided to up its game a little bit. We will see if they really start offering gigabit service outside of Google Fiber markets. I'll be surprised. But i am not complaining at the moment.
Now that said, we should consider alternative programs. Work programs for example. We use prisoners as axillary fire fighters sometimes for example. Big blaze hits California burning down the forest... and we deploy thousands of immates to fire camps and they cut fire breaks and basically do the worst most back breaking jobs that the professional fire fighters don't want to do. I believe we pay the prisoners 2 dollars a day for their efforts.
What would I have prisoners do? Anything anyone would want them to do and the prisoners will consent to do. That's another thing... the work I'm talking about is consensual. No one is forced to do it. You can go back to the prison at any time. So what would I have them do... anything they could do... they could answer phones... do paper work... harvest crops (I'm aware of the optics of having fellows in orange harvesting cotton), possibly doing some factory work... anything at all. Just get them jobs... RIGHT NOW... we could have whole industries pop up around these prisons.
We already have a prison industry. There are plenty of private prisons and we've already seen judges who are more than willing to throw the book at people to earn those prisons extra profit. Can you imagine the motivation to imprison people if you could get employees at $2 a day? You could just move all those factory jobs from China to the US with those labor rates. We probably have almost as many convicts as China has factory workers already. No, if you want prisoners to clean up after a nature disaster, or help to save lives during one, then fine. If you want them to pick up trash off the freeway, go back to school, learn trade skills, I'm all for it. But anything that encourages judges and other politicians (yes judges are politicians!) to sell other people off to a private prison industry is a no go in my book. It would be worse than selling your soul to the company store at a coal mine.
I'm sure there were also a ton of other factors in there that moved around the various components of the equation too. But it's still energy in vs energy out.
Fine, you're right in a sense, but the point is that the GP was claiming that the BMR does not really change from person to person (other than just due do factors such as age and size) and that it is a far more simple equation than it actually is. That's the point I am trying to make, that it's not a simple equation because there are far more variables than the GP claims. That there are variables that have absolutely nothing to do with exercise or food intake that affect your ability to lose weight. Variables that can cause your body to store energy when it normally would not. The only way to make it as simple as the GP claims is if you are starving yourself to the point where your body has no choice but to feed on itself.
You're right, I was thinking the Concorde cruised at just over mach 1, but it was moving mach 2. However, I know of no published top speed for the Concorde. The highest acknowledged speed was Mach 3.4, which is closer to 1.75 times faster than the Concorde.
My reply to this would be that your eating habits changed without you realize it. This is very, very common, especially if you're spending several more hours a day asleep.
Except that there is evidence that sleep loss affects your metabolic rate. And while this Mayo Clinic article suggests that sleep deprivation can cause cravings, I can tell you right now that I was on the exact same diet before and after the treatment. But if you bother to Google you can find article after article that quote different studies that suggest that sleep deprivation leads to a slower metabolic rate. So you can go ahead and put your head in the sand and think whatever you want, but doctors and scientists pretty much all disagree with you.
In fact, the flight, believe it or not, had a total of 20 passengers, with a cabin crew of 10... One thing is for sure, NO airline today would operate ANY aircraft with THAT small a load, let alone a "gas-hog" like a 747... Today, they'd simply cancel the flight, courtesy of deregulation.. Back then, prior to deregulation, they were prohibited from cancelling flights except under strict rules, as I recall.. I made it to LA by about 5am, and caught a connecting flight to San Diego.. My one and only 747 flight...
Just in the last few years I flew on a 737 with ONE other passenger. The flight attendant told us to sit wherever we wanted and to not expect her to whip out the service cart. Instead she told us to hit the call button and that we could have anything we wanted, including free alcohol. The amusing thing is that the airline ran an hourly flight on that route. The plane that was supposed to leave before mine was delayed due to mechanical issues and no one asked to go to my flight, so a completely full 737 left after mine.
The SR-71 was a flying, leaking fuel tank that couldn't even take off on a full tank, requiring a mid-air refuel shortly after before getting very quickly to its operating altitude. Concorde really was a long, long, long, long, long, long way ahead in what was achieved.
First of all, you are wrong. The SR-71 would start on a low tank of fuel because of weight considerations for the brakes and in the event of an emergency during or immediately after takeoff. Secondly it is not fair to compare the SR-71 and the Concorde at all. The SR-71 didn't leak because the designers were too stupid to build an airplane that didn't leak. If you flew the Concorde at the speeds that you flew an SR-71 it would melt into a pile of scrap or the fuel would explode. The SR-71 leaked fuel because the airframe got so hot at mach 3+ that the airframe expanded drastically. The SR-71 did not leak fuel once it warmed up. It also traveled at over 3 times the speed of the Concorde.
I never said "deserve." I was a fat guy, and now I'm not a fat guy. I did it the same way everyone ultimately does it: eating less and moving more. There is some, but not much, person to person variation in BMR. You can calculate your own BMR to a reasonable accuracy using your age, mass, gender, and body composition. From there it becomes an engineering problem: energy in and energy out.
It's a simple problem, but not an easy one. The energy in part is extremely difficult to tackle. Hyperpalatable foods - foods with a combination of fats, salts, and simple carbs or sugars - are a huge problem. They are cheap and make it easy to eat far far more than one needs. It's very difficult to maintain the energy in side of the equation when we spend our days surrounded by calorie-dense, delicious food that is essentially free.
Satiety is strongly affected by hormones and genetics - some people can "eat whatever they want" and maintain their weight while some people can't. If you're really strict about observing these people (who often claim they eat 3000+ calories a day and don't exercise), they eat far less than they think they do. I've observed a number of those people, and counted calories on them. It never fails. The energy equation always wins. You can put someone on an isocaloric diet, measure their mass change over time, and calculate their average calorie expenditure.
Satiety is also strongly affected by the food you eat, which is why low-carb diets are often so effective. It's really rather difficult to eat 3000 calories worth of meat and vegetables a day, while 3000 is no problem when you include bread, chips, ice cream, soda, juice, etc.
On top of that, our society is getting fatter and fatter. It's not because BMR is changing.
tl;dr Variability in BMR from person to person can be explained almost entirely by the known predictors (gender, age, height, fat mass, and fat free mass), and the obesity epidemic is not caused by differences in BMR.
Then how do you explain the case of someone with sleep apnea, for example? I used to have obstructive sleep apnea. I would go to the gym 7 days a week and workout for hours lifting weights and doing cardio. I got treated for sleep apnea and not only did I maintain the same pretreatment diet, but worked out less often and lost 50 pounds in a few months. Doctors already know that people who are not getting enough rest have almost no chance of losing weight. So clearly there is more involved than thermodynamics. Almost 10 years after treatment for sleep apnea I have never regained the mass I had prior to treatment.
If you want an employee that sees stuff as fun toys and re-invents the wheel at every chance, hire a young programmer.
This isn't true anymore. Young programmers are obsessed with showing what they know, which means doing things the accepted way, which means using a framework. It's safe. It shows that you've learned something that someone can quiz you on. It also means you've saddled your employer with another technology to support and that you've spent more time learning a framework than the problem was worth, but your resume is buzzword compliant.
An old programmer would have gotten the thing done in a fraction of the time, created far less code and used technology that is easy to hire, but he'd also be ridiculed by the young programmer for not keeping up.
"Not invented here" isn't a problem with the young programmer anymore. "Afraid to invent it here" or "doesn't know how to invent it here" is more like it.
Haha you're hilarious. The young programmer will go out there and reinvent the wheel by using some framework or class he finds on stack overflow and then using that overly complex mess to do something simple. Why just the other day I completely removed a class that a programmer added to make modifications to simple strings. He grabbed the class from SO, which was overly complex in every way imaginable but just plain stupid for what we needed. I rewrote the functionality of an entire class with 4 lines of code - if you include the { } in my loop. All because some young kid wanted to learn how to extend a class and some other young kid saw it and thought it was the coolest thing ever. I see it happen with frameworks, too.
College level should be 100% free to citizens in the USA, there is no reason at all to have to charge for classes up to associates, and it should be inexpensive to get to bachelors and beyond.
I 100% disagree with you. I have no problem with subsidizing the education of people who really want to be at school but there were plenty of jackasses that were there to party. They failed just as many classes as they passed and it took them 6+ years to finish, if they ever did. I have no interest in paying for these people to have a good time. Not to mention the fact that there is no reason that everyone should have to go to college. There are plenty of people that don't do well with academics. They should get free trade schools, if they perform.
I hope this doesn't get me thrown in jail but I'll tell you how we access Popcorn time in the US: You pick up your phone and dial the following number: 767-2676. At the beep, the operator will give you the latest information about Popcorn time. But I really thought that some legislator worked hard to get that service shut down?
That should be 16 CPU cores, not a 16 core CPU. It was 4 quad cores with hyperthreading. I'm still waking up (16 physical cores, 16 hyperthreading cores).
Seriously? You really need to review your GC knowledge. A lot have changed now that we can perform things in parallel.
I've worked on a project with a 16 core CPU and 196GB of RAM handling billions of records of data. The system would literally grind to a halt for 5 minutes every single day while java garbage collection occurred. And you had no control over when it would occur. This was not even 2 years ago so if you're referring to multithreaded programming then NOTHING has changed. If something has changed in Java itself, then you may have a valid point.
Software engineers responsible for real-time, public safety software should be capable of managing memory in their code
And surgeons responsible for cutting open live human beings should be capable of not leaving tools in the person they're operating on, but it still happens. Professionals make mistakes. Garbage collection is a useful tool to make it more difficult to screw up.
Until the entire air traffic system grinds to a halt at the same time every day while java garbage collects everything. No, garbage collection is not the answer. There are more performant ways to manage memory.
Of course, that's primarily because censoring viewpoints tales quite a bit of work and the more reflective an echo chamber you want to built the more censoring there is to be done.
I don't think so. It's because of dicks (one of them being a coworker of mine) who goes onto those news sites and does nothing but spew hate towards everyone commenting on the articles. He's a top commenter on many news outlets, including ones where his message is completely opposite of the main demographic for that outlet.
I have a router that takes a 3G/4G USB dongle. It has a built-in 4 port ethernet switch (as well as a wifi access point).
Well okay yeah but you could also just use tethering + internet connection sharing over the LAN to do that with just a regular switch. My point is that they were interfering with all WiFi traffic, even traffic that was not competing directly with their plan to sell internet services.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
About 150 planes, and I'd heard that the generals in the Army don't like being flown around by the Air Force, so they use Army "reconnaissance" planes from the army to move around without having to get permission from the AF. No idea if that's true. I've never been a general in this or any other army.
Huh. You're right. They're all small transport (VIP style) except for one that is used for training by the special forces in the army. I wonder who pilots them? In all my years working with Army Aviation I never once met a fixed wing pilot. They all had fixed wing licenses, but I've been to all the school houses that I know of and they were all rotary wing. Maybe they have USAF pilots embedded in the units? I know that certain MOSes can be loaned between branches.
Something to do with deauth packets on any other ap in range.. so nobody could connect to ANY ap other than theirs.... diabolical...
Yep. And it's not like they warned the companies renting the booths. I had one demo fail and require emergency workarounds because of these clowns. We just wanted to broadcast a LAN connection across the booth to avoid having to run cabling under our carpeting. No internet or anything.
So if it was lower in 2009, and Uber didn't exist in 2009, it follows that you haven't isolated the drunk drive factor!
Also you then need to figure out what makes them not drunk-drive. If its the easy booking by phone, well taxis can be ordered by phone so the reduction in recent years might be attributed to the easy book-by-smartphone apps, not specifically the unlicensed nature of Uber taxis!
Likewise if its price, then maybe reducing the price of taxis is the solution, rather than replacing taxis with unlicensed ones.
I grew up in the Bay Area and a lot of places had free taxi service on new years eve. They do it here where I live now, also. Why would anyone want to drive drunk on NYE? Perhaps there is a long line to get your free taxi.
I used to work with Army Aviation and they are not allowed to have any fixed wing aircraft at all, with one exception.
I thought they had lots of cargo fixed-wing airplanes. And some smaller ones used for other reasons (listed as "reconnaissance, and used to fly generals around).
I could be wrong. But they used to ship my company parts and what not all the time. They would send an air force cargo plane, who would unload the cargo directly into our hanger (we weren't allowed on the aircraft for whatever reason) and then they would fly off again. So if the army has cargo planes, they still use the AF for most of their heavy lifting. I believe that the VIP fixed wing transports are all part of a DoD pool that is flown by USAF and Navy pilots that are assigned to specific branches. I could be wrong about that, too.
My point is exactly what you wrote there. USAF hasn't been in a dogfight since Vietnam. Meanwhile CCCP (as the sponsor of Vietnamese) collapsed and all that's left is pulverizing [anti]airforceless enemy into dust.
So where does that scenario of F35 vs SU35 happen without a serious risk of all out nuclear war?
Probably in Asia again. China has been stepping up its game in Asia trying to show the world that it is a superpower. It is certainly possible for the US and China to have a proxy war just like the USSR and the USA had throughout the cold war. And even if the US were to enter into a war with a superpower, that does not mean that the war would take an unconventional turn.
Thanks for the history lesson. While we're at it, tell me how USAF fared in WWI? There must be some relevant experience there too.
The USAF did not exist in WWI. In fact, the USAF did not exist in WWII either. What is your point? At least you could have tried to mention the fact that the USAF has not been in a dog fight since Vietnam. This is entirely true. But the USAF has also not been in a protracted AA conflict with anyone since Vietnam. The SU-35 is capable of maintaining a speed of 1,490 mph and has radar absorbing paint that reduces its cross section dramatically. A distance of 100 miles could be closed in mere minutes. If your missiles miss then you would very quickly find yourself in dog fighting range.
Slashdot Mirror
I live in Charlotte, and Google Fiber is on its way here as well as in nearby Raleigh. Lo and behold, I get a notice in the mail last month that TWC is increasing all our plans by 5x capacity, so I went from 20/1 to 100/5 at the same price.
Well, that's great, but...you'll only increase capacity once there's a threat? And its so cheap to do that you'll not increase prices and finish the roll-out less than 6 months from Google's announcement? Really inspires tons of customer loyalty there, Time Warner. Jackasses.
Which brings me to my point: If this rollout by Comcast is true, is someone finally getting out IN FRONT of Google Fiber, not just being a reactionary twit? Maybe, just maybe, someone is learning that customers are switching not only because of your product but because you treat your customers like crap?
I think I'm too idealistic. That would make way too much sense for the telcos to think of it.
There is no threat of Google Fiber or any other fiber service. Comcast and ATT are the only games in town. Comcast has doubled my speed twice in the last year without increasing my cost. I think I am getting 100/20 now, but I can't remember exactly. While I have no doubt that this is due to Google Fiber threats in other markets, it appears that Comcast has decided to up its game a little bit. We will see if they really start offering gigabit service outside of Google Fiber markets. I'll be surprised. But i am not complaining at the moment.
Sounds like they should have been using swallows instead of pigeons.
African or European?
Now that said, we should consider alternative programs. Work programs for example. We use prisoners as axillary fire fighters sometimes for example. Big blaze hits California burning down the forest... and we deploy thousands of immates to fire camps and they cut fire breaks and basically do the worst most back breaking jobs that the professional fire fighters don't want to do. I believe we pay the prisoners 2 dollars a day for their efforts.
What would I have prisoners do? Anything anyone would want them to do and the prisoners will consent to do. That's another thing... the work I'm talking about is consensual. No one is forced to do it. You can go back to the prison at any time. So what would I have them do... anything they could do... they could answer phones... do paper work... harvest crops (I'm aware of the optics of having fellows in orange harvesting cotton), possibly doing some factory work... anything at all. Just get them jobs... RIGHT NOW... we could have whole industries pop up around these prisons.
We already have a prison industry. There are plenty of private prisons and we've already seen judges who are more than willing to throw the book at people to earn those prisons extra profit. Can you imagine the motivation to imprison people if you could get employees at $2 a day? You could just move all those factory jobs from China to the US with those labor rates. We probably have almost as many convicts as China has factory workers already. No, if you want prisoners to clean up after a nature disaster, or help to save lives during one, then fine. If you want them to pick up trash off the freeway, go back to school, learn trade skills, I'm all for it. But anything that encourages judges and other politicians (yes judges are politicians!) to sell other people off to a private prison industry is a no go in my book. It would be worse than selling your soul to the company store at a coal mine.
I'm sure there were also a ton of other factors in there that moved around the various components of the equation too. But it's still energy in vs energy out.
Fine, you're right in a sense, but the point is that the GP was claiming that the BMR does not really change from person to person (other than just due do factors such as age and size) and that it is a far more simple equation than it actually is. That's the point I am trying to make, that it's not a simple equation because there are far more variables than the GP claims. That there are variables that have absolutely nothing to do with exercise or food intake that affect your ability to lose weight. Variables that can cause your body to store energy when it normally would not. The only way to make it as simple as the GP claims is if you are starving yourself to the point where your body has no choice but to feed on itself.
You're right, I was thinking the Concorde cruised at just over mach 1, but it was moving mach 2. However, I know of no published top speed for the Concorde. The highest acknowledged speed was Mach 3.4, which is closer to 1.75 times faster than the Concorde.
Oh and if you actually knew what sleep apnea was, you'd know that the people sleep, they just don't get rest.
My reply to this would be that your eating habits changed without you realize it. This is very, very common, especially if you're spending several more hours a day asleep.
Except that there is evidence that sleep loss affects your metabolic rate. And while this Mayo Clinic article suggests that sleep deprivation can cause cravings, I can tell you right now that I was on the exact same diet before and after the treatment. But if you bother to Google you can find article after article that quote different studies that suggest that sleep deprivation leads to a slower metabolic rate. So you can go ahead and put your head in the sand and think whatever you want, but doctors and scientists pretty much all disagree with you.
In fact, the flight, believe it or not, had a total of 20 passengers, with a cabin crew of 10... One thing is for sure, NO airline today would operate ANY aircraft with THAT small a load, let alone a "gas-hog" like a 747... Today, they'd simply cancel the flight, courtesy of deregulation.. Back then, prior to deregulation, they were prohibited from cancelling flights except under strict rules, as I recall.. I made it to LA by about 5am, and caught a connecting flight to San Diego.. My one and only 747 flight...
Just in the last few years I flew on a 737 with ONE other passenger. The flight attendant told us to sit wherever we wanted and to not expect her to whip out the service cart. Instead she told us to hit the call button and that we could have anything we wanted, including free alcohol. The amusing thing is that the airline ran an hourly flight on that route. The plane that was supposed to leave before mine was delayed due to mechanical issues and no one asked to go to my flight, so a completely full 737 left after mine.
The SR-71 was a flying, leaking fuel tank that couldn't even take off on a full tank, requiring a mid-air refuel shortly after before getting very quickly to its operating altitude. Concorde really was a long, long, long, long, long, long way ahead in what was achieved.
First of all, you are wrong. The SR-71 would start on a low tank of fuel because of weight considerations for the brakes and in the event of an emergency during or immediately after takeoff. Secondly it is not fair to compare the SR-71 and the Concorde at all. The SR-71 didn't leak because the designers were too stupid to build an airplane that didn't leak. If you flew the Concorde at the speeds that you flew an SR-71 it would melt into a pile of scrap or the fuel would explode. The SR-71 leaked fuel because the airframe got so hot at mach 3+ that the airframe expanded drastically. The SR-71 did not leak fuel once it warmed up. It also traveled at over 3 times the speed of the Concorde.
I never said "deserve." I was a fat guy, and now I'm not a fat guy. I did it the same way everyone ultimately does it: eating less and moving more. There is some, but not much, person to person variation in BMR. You can calculate your own BMR to a reasonable accuracy using your age, mass, gender, and body composition. From there it becomes an engineering problem: energy in and energy out.
It's a simple problem, but not an easy one. The energy in part is extremely difficult to tackle. Hyperpalatable foods - foods with a combination of fats, salts, and simple carbs or sugars - are a huge problem. They are cheap and make it easy to eat far far more than one needs. It's very difficult to maintain the energy in side of the equation when we spend our days surrounded by calorie-dense, delicious food that is essentially free.
Satiety is strongly affected by hormones and genetics - some people can "eat whatever they want" and maintain their weight while some people can't. If you're really strict about observing these people (who often claim they eat 3000+ calories a day and don't exercise), they eat far less than they think they do. I've observed a number of those people, and counted calories on them. It never fails. The energy equation always wins. You can put someone on an isocaloric diet, measure their mass change over time, and calculate their average calorie expenditure.
Satiety is also strongly affected by the food you eat, which is why low-carb diets are often so effective. It's really rather difficult to eat 3000 calories worth of meat and vegetables a day, while 3000 is no problem when you include bread, chips, ice cream, soda, juice, etc.
On top of that, our society is getting fatter and fatter. It's not because BMR is changing.
tl;dr Variability in BMR from person to person can be explained almost entirely by the known predictors (gender, age, height, fat mass, and fat free mass), and the obesity epidemic is not caused by differences in BMR.
Then how do you explain the case of someone with sleep apnea, for example? I used to have obstructive sleep apnea. I would go to the gym 7 days a week and workout for hours lifting weights and doing cardio. I got treated for sleep apnea and not only did I maintain the same pretreatment diet, but worked out less often and lost 50 pounds in a few months. Doctors already know that people who are not getting enough rest have almost no chance of losing weight. So clearly there is more involved than thermodynamics. Almost 10 years after treatment for sleep apnea I have never regained the mass I had prior to treatment.
If you want an employee that sees stuff as fun toys and re-invents the wheel at every chance, hire a young programmer.
This isn't true anymore. Young programmers are obsessed with showing what they know, which means doing things the accepted way, which means using a framework. It's safe. It shows that you've learned something that someone can quiz you on. It also means you've saddled your employer with another technology to support and that you've spent more time learning a framework than the problem was worth, but your resume is buzzword compliant.
An old programmer would have gotten the thing done in a fraction of the time, created far less code and used technology that is easy to hire, but he'd also be ridiculed by the young programmer for not keeping up.
"Not invented here" isn't a problem with the young programmer anymore. "Afraid to invent it here" or "doesn't know how to invent it here" is more like it.
Haha you're hilarious. The young programmer will go out there and reinvent the wheel by using some framework or class he finds on stack overflow and then using that overly complex mess to do something simple. Why just the other day I completely removed a class that a programmer added to make modifications to simple strings. He grabbed the class from SO, which was overly complex in every way imaginable but just plain stupid for what we needed. I rewrote the functionality of an entire class with 4 lines of code - if you include the { } in my loop. All because some young kid wanted to learn how to extend a class and some other young kid saw it and thought it was the coolest thing ever. I see it happen with frameworks, too.
They are for empowering a small group of people.
College level should be 100% free to citizens in the USA, there is no reason at all to have to charge for classes up to associates, and it should be inexpensive to get to bachelors and beyond.
I 100% disagree with you. I have no problem with subsidizing the education of people who really want to be at school but there were plenty of jackasses that were there to party. They failed just as many classes as they passed and it took them 6+ years to finish, if they ever did. I have no interest in paying for these people to have a good time. Not to mention the fact that there is no reason that everyone should have to go to college. There are plenty of people that don't do well with academics. They should get free trade schools, if they perform.
I hope this doesn't get me thrown in jail but I'll tell you how we access Popcorn time in the US: You pick up your phone and dial the following number: 767-2676. At the beep, the operator will give you the latest information about Popcorn time. But I really thought that some legislator worked hard to get that service shut down?
That should be 16 CPU cores, not a 16 core CPU. It was 4 quad cores with hyperthreading. I'm still waking up (16 physical cores, 16 hyperthreading cores).
Seriously? You really need to review your GC knowledge. A lot have changed now that we can perform things in parallel.
I've worked on a project with a 16 core CPU and 196GB of RAM handling billions of records of data. The system would literally grind to a halt for 5 minutes every single day while java garbage collection occurred. And you had no control over when it would occur. This was not even 2 years ago so if you're referring to multithreaded programming then NOTHING has changed. If something has changed in Java itself, then you may have a valid point.
Software engineers responsible for real-time, public safety software should be capable of managing memory in their code
And surgeons responsible for cutting open live human beings should be capable of not leaving tools in the person they're operating on, but it still happens. Professionals make mistakes. Garbage collection is a useful tool to make it more difficult to screw up.
Until the entire air traffic system grinds to a halt at the same time every day while java garbage collects everything. No, garbage collection is not the answer. There are more performant ways to manage memory.
Of course, that's primarily because censoring viewpoints tales quite a bit of work and the more reflective an echo chamber you want to built the more censoring there is to be done.
I don't think so. It's because of dicks (one of them being a coworker of mine) who goes onto those news sites and does nothing but spew hate towards everyone commenting on the articles. He's a top commenter on many news outlets, including ones where his message is completely opposite of the main demographic for that outlet.
I have a router that takes a 3G/4G USB dongle. It has a built-in 4 port ethernet switch (as well as a wifi access point).
Well okay yeah but you could also just use tethering + internet connection sharing over the LAN to do that with just a regular switch. My point is that they were interfering with all WiFi traffic, even traffic that was not competing directly with their plan to sell internet services.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... About 150 planes, and I'd heard that the generals in the Army don't like being flown around by the Air Force, so they use Army "reconnaissance" planes from the army to move around without having to get permission from the AF. No idea if that's true. I've never been a general in this or any other army.
Huh. You're right. They're all small transport (VIP style) except for one that is used for training by the special forces in the army. I wonder who pilots them? In all my years working with Army Aviation I never once met a fixed wing pilot. They all had fixed wing licenses, but I've been to all the school houses that I know of and they were all rotary wing. Maybe they have USAF pilots embedded in the units? I know that certain MOSes can be loaned between branches.
Interesting, so a savvy user could circumvent this nonsense by tethering their hotspot (or smartphone) via USB or Bluetooth.
Only if you just needed a WAN connection on a single machine. If you wanted to create a WLAN as a presenter, you were SOL.
Something to do with deauth packets on any other ap in range.. so nobody could connect to ANY ap other than theirs.... diabolical...
Yep. And it's not like they warned the companies renting the booths. I had one demo fail and require emergency workarounds because of these clowns. We just wanted to broadcast a LAN connection across the booth to avoid having to run cabling under our carpeting. No internet or anything.
So if it was lower in 2009, and Uber didn't exist in 2009, it follows that you haven't isolated the drunk drive factor!
Also you then need to figure out what makes them not drunk-drive. If its the easy booking by phone, well taxis can be ordered by phone so the reduction in recent years might be attributed to the easy book-by-smartphone apps, not specifically the unlicensed nature of Uber taxis!
Likewise if its price, then maybe reducing the price of taxis is the solution, rather than replacing taxis with unlicensed ones.
I grew up in the Bay Area and a lot of places had free taxi service on new years eve. They do it here where I live now, also. Why would anyone want to drive drunk on NYE? Perhaps there is a long line to get your free taxi.
I used to work with Army Aviation and they are not allowed to have any fixed wing aircraft at all, with one exception.
I thought they had lots of cargo fixed-wing airplanes. And some smaller ones used for other reasons (listed as "reconnaissance, and used to fly generals around).
I could be wrong. But they used to ship my company parts and what not all the time. They would send an air force cargo plane, who would unload the cargo directly into our hanger (we weren't allowed on the aircraft for whatever reason) and then they would fly off again. So if the army has cargo planes, they still use the AF for most of their heavy lifting. I believe that the VIP fixed wing transports are all part of a DoD pool that is flown by USAF and Navy pilots that are assigned to specific branches. I could be wrong about that, too.
My point is exactly what you wrote there. USAF hasn't been in a dogfight since Vietnam. Meanwhile CCCP (as the sponsor of Vietnamese) collapsed and all that's left is pulverizing [anti]airforceless enemy into dust. So where does that scenario of F35 vs SU35 happen without a serious risk of all out nuclear war?
Probably in Asia again. China has been stepping up its game in Asia trying to show the world that it is a superpower. It is certainly possible for the US and China to have a proxy war just like the USSR and the USA had throughout the cold war. And even if the US were to enter into a war with a superpower, that does not mean that the war would take an unconventional turn.
Thanks for the history lesson. While we're at it, tell me how USAF fared in WWI? There must be some relevant experience there too.
The USAF did not exist in WWI. In fact, the USAF did not exist in WWII either. What is your point? At least you could have tried to mention the fact that the USAF has not been in a dog fight since Vietnam. This is entirely true. But the USAF has also not been in a protracted AA conflict with anyone since Vietnam. The SU-35 is capable of maintaining a speed of 1,490 mph and has radar absorbing paint that reduces its cross section dramatically. A distance of 100 miles could be closed in mere minutes. If your missiles miss then you would very quickly find yourself in dog fighting range.