If you block everything, then when you encounter one of the billion ad domains that exist that are hosted on AWS so you can't block the IP, and can't block the assets because the file names are literately a faceroll, it's not outbid by targeted content that isn't nearly as shitty.
I don't give a fuck who wins the bidding war, they are all shit and I ignore them all. Your "targeted content" is way off target anyway.
... If you want a good web experience
... Those words are straight out of the ad-man's phrase book....
you should only be blocking ads on the very same sites you would use the incognito/private browsing mode on. If you want a miserable web experience, keep on blocking ads with a chain saw instead of a scalpel.
Your basic flawed premise is that I want to see ads and I want them tailored to me. I don't. When I am thinking of buying something serious (car, camera) I do my own looking for ads, like going to camera makers' and review websites. When I am not thinking of buying something I don't want to see ads. You don't know when I am thinking of buying something like that - here's a clue : it is not necessarily when I look at eg camera makers' websites.
they will set up web pages so that when a Facebook reviewer clicks a link to check whether it's consistent with Facebook's policies, they are taken to a different web page than when someone using the Facebook app clicks that same link
Am I missing something? Why are the Facebook reviewers not using the same sort of browser or app as an end user would?
Your friend is a dinosaur. They've invented these new gadgets that allow you to talk to people without having to drive to them. He should look into using one.
Lot of dinosaurs around; a long way from extinction. Have you been asleep for a century? - the invention you refer to is not new yet the amount of travelling "to see people" has increased massively in that time. I regularly need to visit sites (power stations) up to 300 miles away to inspect the plant.
Lol, electrics are already cheaper than fossil fuel in most First World countries.
Only because (in the UK) fossil fuel for IC vehicles is massively taxed, and EV usage is massively subsidised (in terms of the licence fee). Government will not be able to afford that loss of taxation if EVs replace ICs on a large scale, so the taxation will be placed on EVs too, probably by road tolls.
"Internal combustion engine vehicles will never take off, the horse will reign supreme forever. I mean, what if someone wants to go somewhere without roads?" That's you. That's what you sound like.
This replies to a question (way back - been easier if he had quoted it) which was was "What if I want to drive more than 500 miles in a day?. It is actually the biggest question hanging over to EVs right now and the car makers and others are putting massive efforts into trying to address it.
So care to have a go at answering this key question yourself instead of being smart-arsed? Please come up with something less pathetic than the usual "Stop for a coffee while it charges".
And FYI, gas stations are much more likely to be "shitholes" than superchargers. Here's a random list of supercharger photo pictures.. How much of a "shithole" do they look like to you?
The original point is that you suggested having lunch while your EV charged. Someone replied that he did not want to eat lunch at a shithole.
"Shithole" might be an exageration, but I don't want to eat lunch or hang around at either a gas station or an EV charging station (likely the same place anyway). Eateries at such places are the type of busy, noisy places I hate. I stop to eat at roadside inns which are likely never to have charging points, or just pull off the road miles from anywhere and eat my own sandwiches.
Like many who announce brave new ways of living, you assume that everyone else has a lifestyle similar to your own, and your Brave New World by amazing co-incidence happens to be pretty similar to the one you have around yourself already.
But that is important, because without this research, the teams of professional engineers designing SDCs would have never even considered that a traffic sign could be smudged or obscured by a tree branch.
They probably did not if they are anything like the professionals in charge of road signage around where I live (rurally). At this time of year many of the signs are totally obscured by foliage and no-one does anything about it. If I lived near one such I'd go out and clear it.
Has't this sort of thing been heard before? Modern American politician : "The economy cannot survive without immigrants" Ancient Greek politician : "Civilisation cannot survive without slavery"
Musk on the other hand has single handedly pulled the world up and made electric cars a reality. It's not the fringe technology we might develop 20 years from now, in perpetuity any more... His impact is so big, countries are beginning to mandate electric cars in the future.
What a load of BS, unless you are fishing for "Funny" mods. You do know that Tesla existed before Musk's involvement and he just bought into it? The UK, where I am, has begun to mandate electic cars in the future but that is nothing to do with Musk, and people here do not especially think of Musk when they think of electric cars. That seems to be an Americanism
If Musk wanted to be the next Steve Jobs then at least he has succeded in that, which I do not mean as a compliment. Like Jobs, he is primarily a successful salesman, using the device of creating a cult following.
I don't think you understand anything about Hyperloop... Hyperloop pods leave every few minutes. There is no "schedule" like with trains.
Well that will depend on the traffic level. Trains at my nearest station run every 2 hours, but there is no technical reason why they could not run every 2 minutes - the London Underground railway does. They don't only because there are not enough passengers to justify it economically.
1) Hyperloop costs are budgeted at rates similar to.. pipelines, on a "length times cross section" basis. It has a number of aspects that make it more expensive than a pipeline ([such as] greater straightness requirements... ).
(My bold) You can say that again. The Hyperloop will have to be very straight indeed to avoid unacceptable lateral and vertical accelerations on the passengers. Oil pipelines can hug the contours and abruptly go round obstacles; OTOH Hyperloop will require some spectacular civil engineering in hilly districts and will need steering around obstacles like intermediate towns in very gentle and sub-optimal curves.
... low pressure is easier to resist than high...
Not if the low pressure is a vacuum. A large vacuum pipe must resist unstable implosion but a pipe with positive internal pressure keeps its shape until bursting point. As a simple example, try how much vacuum a toy balloon will take compared with pressure.
2) The cost to elevate something (like a rail viaduct) is almost linearly proportional to peak loading.
You are forgetting wind loads. Some of those Hyperloop viaducts are going to be very high because of the reason I gave above.
The peak loadings are also much more transient, which is much easier to resist.
Nonsense. Transient loadings do not impose less stress than static ones. And you must design for a possible stoppage anyway.
3) Because the elevation cost is reduced, it lets them build the whole thing elevated over public right-of-ways..., greatly reducing acquisition costs. This is limited by bending radii.
(My bold) You can say that again. You are not going to find much public right-of-way straight enough for Hyperloop
4) While permitting is still required, building over a public right-of-way - something already permitted for much noisier and more polluting operation
I have no idea what "something" you are referring to there.
I was listening to an interview with one of the team members.. the biggest problem they face trying to go faster is the test track is too short! In other words, they've built the pods to go faster, but until they upgrade the track they won't be able to test it.
Thanks for that pearl of wisdom. We didn't realise they need some distance to get up speed. Shame that. OTOH my car can reach 60mph without moving from the spot.
That's gonna be trippy riding inside....., anyone trying to stand while this is going on is going to be leaned forward at 51 degrees relative to vertical at rest.
I don't suppose the passenger version will accelerate that hard. This was to test the behaviour of the hardware at speed. Next step will be to extend the track and reach a higher speed. After that they will need to try a test track with curves. They have not yet begun to address the issue of what people can actually put up with in terms of acceleration (in all three axes) with no reference horizon. They will need some human guinea pigs for that. It did not go too well when high-speed tilting trains were first tried.
They're far less problematic when you're not creating a "hard" vacuum as is the case with Hyperloops.
A perfect vacuum is impossible on Earth anyway. Even the metal tube will give off atoms. The point is that even an imperfect but high vacuum poses a lot of difficulty.
The morons mixed up braking/breaking and "rarefied" means the opposite of their faulty usage.
I'm in the UK and I see "breaking" (= destroying) so often used for "braking" (= reducing speed) that I'm beginning to think it is just the American spelling. Is this so?
Stop making bull shit special laws that are purposely broad in scope. Sex trafficking is illegal already so enforce that fucking law.
It is the law against sex trafficking that is broad in scope. This law is meant to target a mechanism of it (whether any good at it is another matter). It is like having no road traffic laws except one that just says "Drive safely" and saying fucking enforce it.
Slashdot Mirror
If you block everything, then when you encounter one of the billion ad domains that exist that are hosted on AWS so you can't block the IP, and can't block the assets because the file names are literately a faceroll, it's not outbid by targeted content that isn't nearly as shitty.
I don't give a fuck who wins the bidding war, they are all shit and I ignore them all. Your "targeted content" is way off target anyway.
... Those words are straight out of the ad-man's phrase book ....
you should only be blocking ads on the very same sites you would use the incognito/private browsing mode on. If you want a miserable web experience, keep on blocking ads with a chain saw instead of a scalpel.
Your basic flawed premise is that I want to see ads and I want them tailored to me. I don't. When I am thinking of buying something serious (car, camera) I do my own looking for ads, like going to camera makers' and review websites. When I am not thinking of buying something I don't want to see ads. You don't know when I am thinking of buying something like that - here's a clue : it is not necessarily when I look at eg camera makers' websites.
FTFA : -
they will set up web pages so that when a Facebook reviewer clicks a link to check whether it's consistent with Facebook's policies, they are taken to a different web page than when someone using the Facebook app clicks that same link
Am I missing something? Why are the Facebook reviewers not using the same sort of browser or app as an end user would?
Your friend is a dinosaur. They've invented these new gadgets that allow you to talk to people without having to drive to them. He should look into using one.
Lot of dinosaurs around; a long way from extinction. Have you been asleep for a century? - the invention you refer to is not new yet the amount of travelling "to see people" has increased massively in that time. I regularly need to visit sites (power stations) up to 300 miles away to inspect the plant.
Until the refiners see that there is a major glut of product available, and they start turning that oil into something else besides gasoline
Yes, I'm sure that we can all be persuaded by clever advertising to buy blocks of plastic equivalent to the amount of fuel we use now.
Lol, electrics are already cheaper than fossil fuel in most First World countries.
Only because (in the UK) fossil fuel for IC vehicles is massively taxed, and EV usage is massively subsidised (in terms of the licence fee). Government will not be able to afford that loss of taxation if EVs replace ICs on a large scale, so the taxation will be placed on EVs too, probably by road tolls.
"Internal combustion engine vehicles will never take off, the horse will reign supreme forever. I mean, what if someone wants to go somewhere without roads?" That's you. That's what you sound like.
This replies to a question (way back - been easier if he had quoted it) which was was "What if I want to drive more than 500 miles in a day?. It is actually the biggest question hanging over to EVs right now and the car makers and others are putting massive efforts into trying to address it.
So care to have a go at answering this key question yourself instead of being smart-arsed? Please come up with something less pathetic than the usual "Stop for a coffee while it charges".
And FYI, gas stations are much more likely to be "shitholes" than superchargers. Here's a random list of supercharger photo pictures .. How much of a "shithole" do they look like to you?
The original point is that you suggested having lunch while your EV charged. Someone replied that he did not want to eat lunch at a shithole.
"Shithole" might be an exageration, but I don't want to eat lunch or hang around at either a gas station or an EV charging station (likely the same place anyway). Eateries at such places are the type of busy, noisy places I hate. I stop to eat at roadside inns which are likely never to have charging points, or just pull off the road miles from anywhere and eat my own sandwiches.
Like many who announce brave new ways of living, you assume that everyone else has a lifestyle similar to your own, and your Brave New World by amazing co-incidence happens to be pretty similar to the one you have around yourself already.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think I've found my new password!
But that's mine.
If I'm making a one-shot purchase from your website, there is NO F*CKING NEED FOR ME TO OPEN AN ACCOUNT!!!
Insensitive clod! Don't you realise that people like you are destroying the internet!
But that is important, because without this research, the teams of professional engineers designing SDCs would have never even considered that a traffic sign could be smudged or obscured by a tree branch.
They probably did not if they are anything like the professionals in charge of road signage around where I live (rurally). At this time of year many of the signs are totally obscured by foliage and no-one does anything about it. If I lived near one such I'd go out and clear it.
You are ignoring the social aspects. Male to female ratio for example.
Has't this sort of thing been heard before?
Modern American politician : "The economy cannot survive without immigrants"
Ancient Greek politician : "Civilisation cannot survive without slavery"
Musk on the other hand has single handedly pulled the world up and made electric cars a reality. It's not the fringe technology we might develop 20 years from now, in perpetuity any more... His impact is so big, countries are beginning to mandate electric cars in the future.
What a load of BS, unless you are fishing for "Funny" mods. You do know that Tesla existed before Musk's involvement and he just bought into it? The UK, where I am, has begun to mandate electic cars in the future but that is nothing to do with Musk, and people here do not especially think of Musk when they think of electric cars. That seems to be an Americanism
If Musk wanted to be the next Steve Jobs then at least he has succeded in that, which I do not mean as a compliment. Like Jobs, he is primarily a successful salesman, using the device of creating a cult following.
I don't think you understand anything about Hyperloop ... Hyperloop pods leave every few minutes. There is no "schedule" like with trains.
Well that will depend on the traffic level. Trains at my nearest station run every 2 hours, but there is no technical reason why they could not run every 2 minutes - the London Underground railway does. They don't only because there are not enough passengers to justify it economically.
1) Hyperloop costs are budgeted at rates similar to .. pipelines, on a "length times cross section" basis. It has a number of aspects that make it more expensive than a pipeline ([such as] greater straightness requirements ... ).
(My bold) You can say that again. The Hyperloop will have to be very straight indeed to avoid unacceptable lateral and vertical accelerations on the passengers. Oil pipelines can hug the contours and abruptly go round obstacles; OTOH Hyperloop will require some spectacular civil engineering in hilly districts and will need steering around obstacles like intermediate towns in very gentle and sub-optimal curves.
Not if the low pressure is a vacuum. A large vacuum pipe must resist unstable implosion but a pipe with positive internal pressure keeps its shape until bursting point. As a simple example, try how much vacuum a toy balloon will take compared with pressure.
2) The cost to elevate something (like a rail viaduct) is almost linearly proportional to peak loading.
You are forgetting wind loads. Some of those Hyperloop viaducts are going to be very high because of the reason I gave above.
The peak loadings are also much more transient, which is much easier to resist.
Nonsense. Transient loadings do not impose less stress than static ones. And you must design for a possible stoppage anyway.
3) Because the elevation cost is reduced, it lets them build the whole thing elevated over public right-of-ways ..., greatly reducing acquisition costs. This is limited by bending radii.
(My bold) You can say that again. You are not going to find much public right-of-way straight enough for Hyperloop
4) While permitting is still required, building over a public right-of-way - something already permitted for much noisier and more polluting operation
I have no idea what "something" you are referring to there.
I was listening to an interview with one of the team members .. the biggest problem they face trying to go faster is the test track is too short! In other words, they've built the pods to go faster, but until they upgrade the track they won't be able to test it.
Thanks for that pearl of wisdom. We didn't realise they need some distance to get up speed. Shame that. OTOH my car can reach 60mph without moving from the spot.
There is no apparent inclination. You get pushed into the back, that is all.
That is apparent inclination
That's gonna be trippy riding inside. ...., anyone trying to stand while this is going on is going to be leaned forward at 51 degrees relative to vertical at rest.
I don't suppose the passenger version will accelerate that hard. This was to test the behaviour of the hardware at speed. Next step will be to extend the track and reach a higher speed. After that they will need to try a test track with curves. They have not yet begun to address the issue of what people can actually put up with in terms of acceleration (in all three axes) with no reference horizon. They will need some human guinea pigs for that. It did not go too well when high-speed tilting trains were first tried.
They're far less problematic when you're not creating a "hard" vacuum as is the case with Hyperloops.
A perfect vacuum is impossible on Earth anyway. Even the metal tube will give off atoms. The point is that even an imperfect but high vacuum poses a lot of difficulty.
I'd hate to be the guy that has to scrape off what's left of the passengers f.. a thin layer of organic goo and a fine red mist.
Sounds easy : hosepipe and an air freshener should do it. It's if there are actual body parts that it gets distasteful.
Let's mark that up as a Hyperloop plus point.
The morons mixed up braking/breaking and "rarefied" means the opposite of their faulty usage.
I'm in the UK and I see "breaking" (= destroying) so often used for "braking" (= reducing speed) that I'm beginning to think it is just the American spelling. Is this so?
Who is training the AI and deciding what is illicit? Better by what measure?
That's the first thing I thought. Who or what is judging whether humans or AI are better at judging - humans or AI ?
Stop making bull shit special laws that are purposely broad in scope. Sex trafficking is illegal already so enforce that fucking law.
It is the law against sex trafficking that is broad in scope. This law is meant to target a mechanism of it (whether any good at it is another matter). It is like having no road traffic laws except one that just says "Drive safely" and saying fucking enforce it.
Definitely sounds like Richard Stallman.
Hey, I was on your side. Nothing of value added though.
Cut him some slack and show some respect. "Rick Schumann" is obviously "Richard Stallman" mistyped.
Intersection, a Google-backed startup, has already installed 1,000 of the kiosks in New York
LinkNYC is already changing New York; two million people are now using the system
So 2000 people are using each kiosk. I assume that crowd control is required, and I hate to think what the response time is like.