Consciously focusing on more than one task simultaneously. It's harder than you think; in fact, according to scientific consensus, it's physically impossible for humans to do.
Horse shit. Show me a scientific definition of multitasking that jives with your own, then show me a "scientific consensus" that shows humans can't do that shit.
People who trot out "scientific consensus" instead of actual fucking science are clowns who should be ignored.
Have you never taken a phone call while having sex? Eaten while watching TV? Played a shitty game on your phone while squeezing out a turd? Watched TV and replied to an email? Driven while talking to a passenger? Looked at things and also heard things? If you can't fucking multi task at all, you're a retard, plain and simple.
You keep using that term, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
Also, if you think being an unholy, childish asshole about it just because someone on the internet disagrees with you somehow helps you gain credibility, or makes you seem like the 'smart guy' in this discussion, you're dead wrong, fella. Insults are the bastion of the ignorant.
Consciously focusing on more than one task simultaneously. It's harder than you think; in fact, according to scientific consensus, it's physically impossible for humans to do.
Take the fraudulent lying car salesmen out of the picture. Let people order direct.
And when the car arrives and isn't exactly what you were expecting based on the website? Chances are, you'll be pissing and moaning about how the fraudulent lying car selling website ripped you off.
In my opinion, you'd have to be functionally retarded to actually want to make a capital purchase without ever actually seeing, touching, or testing the product beforehand.
really, what the fuck does it matter who shops with Android and who shops with iOS?
It matters to retailers, who have to allocate resources toward optimizing a site for the version of WebKit included with Safari for iOS or the version of Chrome included with Android, or allocate resources toward developing an iOS app or an Android app. If iOS users bring more revenue all other things being equal, retailers will court iOS users more.
Ah, good point.
So... Android users spoofing iOS user agents really could be skewing the results in a significant way, by causing developers to spend more time on the iOS side rather than make their Android apps better...
Ron Paul has always been - let's say "popular among the UFO set". Wacko or at least wacky, depending on personal opinion.
Agreed, he's also been a standard bearer for libertarians. That wacky / wacko segment is one of two issues with the otherwise reasonable libertarian party.
Look, people complain about the two party system in the US.
Yea, because there is no such thing, legally speaking. The "two-party system" is one of the greatest hoodwinks ever pulled on the American people.
Ron Paul has always been - let's say "popular among the UFO set". Wacko or at least wacky, depending on personal opinion.
Agreed, he's also been a standard bearer for libertarians. That wacky / wacko segment is one of two issues with the otherwise reasonable libertarian party. The other issue is their obsession with drugs. Occasionally I listen to a libertarian and their "logic" makes me ask "what the hell?!?! Is this guy stoned or what?!". Then I remember the answer is yes, they probably are stoned.
It's unfortunate because libertarians are right about a lot of things, but the druggie and wacko wings of the party make them all look bad.
You were doing OK until you starting blathering your assumptions about why Libertarians are for the legalization of drugs. Then it turned into a personal attack, and you lost any credibility you might have built.
FYI, and to help you avoid making such a freshman mistake in the future, Libertarians are against the criminalization of drugs for several reasons, the main one being that anti-drug laws are patently unconstitutional.
Actually, if you do much research into the party at all, you will soon come to realize that "because it's unconstitutional" is the basis for most of their policies.
While you may not agree with that philosophy, there is no excuse for making shit up.
In my experience, men are far better than women at multitasking. I'll never understand why people claim the opposite.
Because, scientifically speaking, no human is capable of true multitasking.
What we are good at is switching between tasks rapidly.
Females in my experience will do them sequentially, in an order that suits them - if they hate vacuuming that gets done last. Males in my experience will do them concurrently. Fill the sink, put the laundry in the washer, do one rack of dishes, take out the trash, put the laundry in the dryer, vacuum, put the dry dishes away and do the rest of the dishes, fold the laundry.
Not sure if trying to be funny or misogynistic... ?
I'd like to see that myself; Not that I find the idea that a person with XX chromosomes would exhibit the internal physiology of a person with XY chromosomes impossible, but it does seem unlikely.
Then again, maybe our conscious minds have more control over unconscious functions than we realize.
Putting artificial barriers in their way by saying "women should not be engineers or do science" is the wrong message.
So... I take it you're not a fan of Affirmative Action?
Can't say I disagree with that.
FWIW, I don't think anyone is actually saying women shouldn't be engineers, just pointing out that, from a biological physiology standpoint, they aren't wired to think about problems the same way men do.
Hell, IMO that's a good reason for them to become engineers and scientists - preaching to the choir is good for the ego, but not so much for accurate, unbiased research.
No! Men and women are EQUAL, dammit! I'm not listening, lalalalalala...!
One of the great myths of our time is that "equality" is the same as "identicality."
Yea, well, we're talking about a culture that misuses the word "literally" so god-damn much that the dictionary people have given up fighting them, and added "Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling" to the list of definitions.
"Theoretically" because I never had the balls to actually set one of those things off; think about it - you're backfeeding the output of a portable generator into a hot AC transformer. When I came across this concept (back in the 1990's), there wasn't really a safe way to flip the switch without risking what I like to call 'explosive electrocution.'
Now that we live in an age where controlling appliances remotely is child's play, it might actually be a feasible weapon. Because we know the government has done fuck-all to harden our grid against attacks.
How can I shield my car against this? I'm willing to add up to 20lbs to do it.
Sell it and buy an antique from the pre-electronics era. Carburetor and points ignition. Although I assume most of them will be a wee bit more than a 20lb increase over a modern car...
Bad assumption to make; A V6 2012 Toyota Camry XLE has a curb weight of 3,395 lbs, whereas a 1956 Ford Fairlane Skyliner (that's the hardtop convertible one!) has a curb weight on 3,390 lbs.
Although, in your defense, I was a bit surprised to find that out myself... and I'm one of those 'car guys.'
In demonstrations seen by the BBC a car drove towards the device at about 15mph (24km/h). As the vehicle entered the range of the RF Safe-stop, its dashboard warning lights and dials behaved erratically, the engine stopped and the car rolled gently to a halt.
Let's try this demonstration again in a situation where you would actually need such a device, i.e. in a high-speed pursuit. A 15 mph demonstration means nothing for the safety of the product.
It has been proven that the safest way for police to end a high-speed chase is to not engage in it to begin with.
Sometimes the risk of letting someone get away (for now) is worth the reward of not putting innocent citizens in harm's way.
So there are some potentially cool applications of this - stopping a criminal in a car chase with police, for example - but it has massive potential for crime as well. Stopping cars at night, in secluded areas, to steal them and/or assault the passengers? Or causing mayhem by stopping cars on freeways, not all of which will slow at the same speed, leading to massive pile-ups.
Your (hydraulic-assisted) brakes will still work fine.
No, your (pneumatically-assisted) hydraulic brakes will suddenly not act the way you expect them to, because the engine is no longer providing vacuum to the pump.
Try this: go down a deserted road at 30 MPH, then brake hard to a stop. Next, drive down the same deserted road at the same speed, but this time shut the engine off before trying to stop. There will be a marked difference in the pedal.
This kind of thing would be ripe for abuse, but how many times have we heard/read about police chases which result in massive collateral damage and people getting killed?
Enough times to know that the issue might be with the cowboy cops themselves, engaging suspects in high-speed chases through heavily populated metro areas.
YEEE-HAW, We's gunna git us a bad guy, no matter how many civilians have to die in the process!
Slashdot Mirror
I think you've missed the point of the colloquialism.
On purpose, I hope.
Define "true multitasking"./p>
Consciously focusing on more than one task simultaneously. It's harder than you think; in fact, according to scientific consensus, it's physically impossible for humans to do.
Horse shit.
Show me a scientific definition of multitasking that jives with your own, then show me a "scientific consensus" that shows humans can't do that shit.
Take your pick:
https://www.google.com/search?q=can+humans+multitask
People who trot out "scientific consensus" instead of actual fucking science are clowns who should be ignored.
Have you never taken a phone call while having sex? Eaten while watching TV? Played a shitty game on your phone while squeezing out a turd? Watched TV and replied to an email? Driven while talking to a passenger? Looked at things and also heard things? If you can't fucking multi task at all, you're a retard, plain and simple.
You keep using that term, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
Also, if you think being an unholy, childish asshole about it just because someone on the internet disagrees with you somehow helps you gain credibility, or makes you seem like the 'smart guy' in this discussion, you're dead wrong, fella. Insults are the bastion of the ignorant.
Define "true multitasking"./p>
Consciously focusing on more than one task simultaneously. It's harder than you think; in fact, according to scientific consensus, it's physically impossible for humans to do.
OK, so TFS says:
That sort of action is illegal in Germany, where neo-Nazi groups are outlawed
But... if Nazi groups are outlawed... who's enforcing this patently Nazi law that punishes people for listening for certain types of music?
Take the fraudulent lying car salesmen out of the picture. Let people order direct.
And when the car arrives and isn't exactly what you were expecting based on the website? Chances are, you'll be pissing and moaning about how the fraudulent lying car selling website ripped you off.
In my opinion, you'd have to be functionally retarded to actually want to make a capital purchase without ever actually seeing, touching, or testing the product beforehand.
really, what the fuck does it matter who shops with Android and who shops with iOS?
It matters to retailers, who have to allocate resources toward optimizing a site for the version of WebKit included with Safari for iOS or the version of Chrome included with Android, or allocate resources toward developing an iOS app or an Android app. If iOS users bring more revenue all other things being equal, retailers will court iOS users more.
Ah, good point.
So... Android users spoofing iOS user agents really could be skewing the results in a significant way, by causing developers to spend more time on the iOS side rather than make their Android apps better...
Did you notice that you advocated blatant corruption, just now?
Why not? Seems to be working for car dealers all over the country. Sauce for the goose.
How about, 'two wrongs don't make a right?'
> So Ron Paul is a "wacko" now?
Ron Paul has always been - let's say "popular among the UFO set".
Wacko or at least wacky, depending on personal opinion.
Agreed, he's also been a standard bearer for libertarians. That wacky / wacko segment is one of two issues with the otherwise reasonable libertarian party.
Look, people complain about the two party system in the US.
Yea, because there is no such thing, legally speaking. The "two-party system" is one of the greatest hoodwinks ever pulled on the American people.
Seriously. Look it up. Hell, I'll do it for ya:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html?ModPagespeed=noscript#pparty
> So Ron Paul is a "wacko" now?
Ron Paul has always been - let's say "popular among the UFO set".
Wacko or at least wacky, depending on personal opinion.
Agreed, he's also been a standard bearer for libertarians. That wacky / wacko segment is one of two issues with the otherwise reasonable libertarian party. The other issue is their obsession with drugs. Occasionally I listen to a libertarian and their "logic" makes me ask "what the hell?!?! Is this guy stoned or what?!". Then I remember the answer is yes, they probably are stoned.
It's unfortunate because libertarians are right about a lot of things, but the druggie and wacko wings of the party make them all look bad.
You were doing OK until you starting blathering your assumptions about why Libertarians are for the legalization of drugs. Then it turned into a personal attack, and you lost any credibility you might have built.
FYI, and to help you avoid making such a freshman mistake in the future, Libertarians are against the criminalization of drugs for several reasons, the main one being that anti-drug laws are patently unconstitutional.
Actually, if you do much research into the party at all, you will soon come to realize that "because it's unconstitutional" is the basis for most of their policies.
While you may not agree with that philosophy, there is no excuse for making shit up.
Think about it this way:
Nobody is right 100% of the time, but even a blind sow finds a truffle once in a while.
That's nothing. Try comparing an original Mini (1,512 lbs at the heaviest) to a modern BMW-made one (2,496 lbs).
That's probably a better comparison to make for the sake of this conversation.
But not nearly as mind-blowing as finding out that Great-granny's lead sled is actually lighter than my wife's new diesel.
Power-to-weight ratio is a bit fucked, however.
In my experience, men are far better than women at multitasking.
I'll never understand why people claim the opposite.
Because, scientifically speaking, no human is capable of true multitasking.
What we are good at is switching between tasks rapidly.
Females in my experience will do them sequentially, in an order that suits them - if they hate vacuuming that gets done last.
Males in my experience will do them concurrently. Fill the sink, put the laundry in the washer, do one rack of dishes, take out the trash, put the laundry in the dryer, vacuum, put the dry dishes away and do the rest of the dishes, fold the laundry.
Not sure if trying to be funny or misogynistic... ?
Citation....desired
I'd like to see that myself; Not that I find the idea that a person with XX chromosomes would exhibit the internal physiology of a person with XY chromosomes impossible, but it does seem unlikely.
Then again, maybe our conscious minds have more control over unconscious functions than we realize.
Tranny is usually considered to be an offensive term....
Then come up with one that's equally descriptive, equally memorable, and not offensive to anyone.
Good luck with that.
Putting artificial barriers in their way by saying "women should not be engineers or do science" is the wrong message.
So... I take it you're not a fan of Affirmative Action?
Can't say I disagree with that.
FWIW, I don't think anyone is actually saying women shouldn't be engineers, just pointing out that, from a biological physiology standpoint, they aren't wired to think about problems the same way men do.
Hell, IMO that's a good reason for them to become engineers and scientists - preaching to the choir is good for the ego, but not so much for accurate, unbiased research.
I'm starting to think "equality" is one of those words like "common sense" - the definition is subjective, and thus, bullshit.
For me, the only 'equality' that matters is the one posited in the US Constitution's 14th Amendment, Section 1 - the right to equality of justice.
No! Men and women are EQUAL, dammit! I'm not listening, lalalalalala...!
One of the great myths of our time is that "equality" is the same as "identicality."
Yea, well, we're talking about a culture that misuses the word "literally" so god-damn much that the dictionary people have given up fighting them, and added "Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling" to the list of definitions.
Color me not surprised.
But not literally.
"Theoretically" because I never had the balls to actually set one of those things off; think about it - you're backfeeding the output of a portable generator into a hot AC transformer. When I came across this concept (back in the 1990's), there wasn't really a safe way to flip the switch without risking what I like to call 'explosive electrocution.'
Now that we live in an age where controlling appliances remotely is child's play, it might actually be a feasible weapon. Because we know the government has done fuck-all to harden our grid against attacks.
So... my 2012 Jetta TDI is EMP-proof?
Somehow I doubt that...
Wouldn't know, haven't seen it.
But if that's what they did, then yea, it should work*.
* The trick is flipping the generator switch without turning yourself into a crispy critter.
Why is it that people name their product the very opposite of what it is?
Marketing.
Really, because who would want to put money behind a product called "Murder-Stop?"
How can I shield my car against this? I'm willing to add up to 20lbs to do it.
Sell it and buy an antique from the pre-electronics era. Carburetor and points ignition. Although I assume most of them will be a wee bit more than a 20lb increase over a modern car...
Bad assumption to make; A V6 2012 Toyota Camry XLE has a curb weight of 3,395 lbs, whereas a 1956 Ford Fairlane Skyliner (that's the hardtop convertible one!) has a curb weight on 3,390 lbs.
Although, in your defense, I was a bit surprised to find that out myself... and I'm one of those 'car guys.'
In demonstrations seen by the BBC a car drove towards the device at about 15mph (24km/h). As the vehicle entered the range of the RF Safe-stop, its dashboard warning lights and dials behaved erratically, the engine stopped and the car rolled gently to a halt.
Let's try this demonstration again in a situation where you would actually need such a device, i.e. in a high-speed pursuit. A 15 mph demonstration means nothing for the safety of the product.
It has been proven that the safest way for police to end a high-speed chase is to not engage in it to begin with.
Sometimes the risk of letting someone get away (for now) is worth the reward of not putting innocent citizens in harm's way.
So there are some potentially cool applications of this - stopping a criminal in a car chase with police, for example - but it has massive potential for crime as well. Stopping cars at night, in secluded areas, to steal them and/or assault the passengers? Or causing mayhem by stopping cars on freeways, not all of which will slow at the same speed, leading to massive pile-ups.
Your (hydraulic-assisted) brakes will still work fine.
No, your (pneumatically-assisted) hydraulic brakes will suddenly not act the way you expect them to, because the engine is no longer providing vacuum to the pump.
Try this: go down a deserted road at 30 MPH, then brake hard to a stop. Next, drive down the same deserted road at the same speed, but this time shut the engine off before trying to stop. There will be a marked difference in the pedal.
This kind of thing would be ripe for abuse, but how many times have we heard/read about police chases which result in massive collateral damage and people getting killed?
Enough times to know that the issue might be with the cowboy cops themselves, engaging suspects in high-speed chases through heavily populated metro areas.
YEEE-HAW, We's gunna git us a bad guy, no matter how many civilians have to die in the process!