The most obvious are that taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize the consequences if your unhealthy lifestyle. If you smoke and get lung cancer, tough shit. Drink and ruin your liver, same deal. Obesity related medical issues are your own responsibility as well. Also, mandatory requirement that if you want to use the system, you're automatically an organ donor. Throw in some tax deductions (or alternatively just higher taxes for anyone who wouldn't get the "deduction") for people who generally try to stay in reasonable health and it's a reasonable system.
At this point I think it would be wise to point out that everybody dies sometime, somehow and old people tend to have a lot of medical problems. Most people dying from "lifestyle diseases" make it through most their taxable income years, if you drop dead from cardiac arrest at 60 you're still probably cheaper than a fitness freak that goes down fighting at 90 after a decade of deteriorating health going in and out of hospital. And to put it bluntly, very often it doesn't matter how or when it's a matter of whether there's something to be done. I've heard stories of apparently healthy people going to bed and simply not waking up, game over. Very cheap, very easy just issue the death certificate and move on. Others are caught in critical condition and spend days or weeks on the brink of death. There's a huge, huge variation that means the risk and payout won't correlate well no matter what you do.
The other part is, do you really want a society counting the number of beers and smoke and BMI and any risky or stupid activity you do? Orwell would love it, but no just no. I think you should realized that the main reason it won't get crazy abused is that being sick and injured is not fun and generally painful and uncomfortable. And you will spend a lot of time waiting in line unless you're in critical need and in general, you just don't cut yourself to get a free band-aid. Not when it's only going to be put on a bleed wound, it's not like you can keep them and sell them. Now benefits, there's a lot of fraud with disability benefits, a little with some highly regulated drugs that are monitored carefully... but healthcare in general? People are there because they need it, not because they want to.
Of course, the ability of the residents in wealthier neighborhoods to actually PAY for the faster internet service has nothing to do with it... Next up on Slashdot, "This just in, Tesla has yet to build a new car showroom in a lower-income neighborhood!"
Yeah, that and population density (customers/meters of cable) are the two driving factors. But unless they get an incentive to cover everything they have a tendency to micromanage, in the street I used to live it there was a cable company survey. But since most of us already had satellite since there was no cable, they skipped our street. I bet a lot of poor neighborhoods get that, we're rolling out service in the district/city but not your area/block. It cements a divide because there's nothing stopping anybody from buying a Tesla even if they're the odd duck in an area, but if there's no service there's no service.
Here in Norway when they rolled out fiber in the area of our cabin it was partially supported by a public grant. The grant had as a condition that all permanent residents in the county that wanted fiber had to receive it. Most lone farms and such understood this was their now or never moment and signed up. I think that was a good thing, no 70% roll-out and the last 30% when hell freezes over we're basically done. They left stumps so they can hook up any they passed by and if there's a handful of strays they'll probably not be a dick and send out of a ditch digger.
The last survey now showed we have 44% fiber coverage, up from 28% in 2015 and it's mainly DSL that is hurting, cable usually offers enough speed that it's not worth doing a cable -> fiber conversion. But it's all converging on fiber for new deployments, whether it's old telco, old TV company or old power company doing it. Give it another 5 years and it'll be the new normal, I'm guessing we'll soon switch the fund for giving phone access to all over to giving broadband for all, some political parties already have 100 Mbps for everyone by 2025 in their platform.
I think you're misunderstanding this. You already get a full refund no matter what you do, but if you get a different Samsung device, Samsung will give you $100 (well actually $75 since they were already offering $25 previously) credit. It's a smart move because as much as $100 costs for the ~2 million Note 7 customers out there, they stand to lose a lot more if people start avoiding their brand due to this. Doing right by your customers is an important part of retaining them.
I can understand making one fuck-up, doesn't matter if you're NASA occasionally a bug slips by. But when the problem is known and they can't even fix it right so the replacements start catching fire I'm thinking burn me once shame on you, burn me twice shame on me. They obviously have some really bad QA problems to work out and I wouldn't buy another even if they offered me $100 off. It wouldn't be a permanent shitlist or anything, but I'd rather someone else be the guinea pig. If I was in the market for a new phone I certainly wouldn't consider a Samsung now. I think they're way past "doing right" and in "emergency damage control" mode trying to avoid a total meltdown.
Success comes from being good at negotiation your next job... being known as a hard and competent worker doesn't hurt your position in that negotiation, but it's only a small part of the equation.
Unless you're in one of the few lines of work that has a portfolio, what do you really have to prove your skills? It's one thing what your boss and coworkers know but what does a prospective employer really know? The CV is padded, the job title inflated, the references cherry-picked and the last person you want them to talk to is usually your current boss. The interview usually says more about your experience and comfort level being interviewed than your actual skills. If I put myself in an interviewer's shoes - and I've been that a few times but not often - it's really hard to tell the people from substance from the fluff pieces. Of course you have to know something and not be a total bust, but it's not like this is immediately obvious. And if you're networking instead, well that mostly depends on how well you've built and maintained your networks not your actual skills. It should count more than it actually does.
In modern Norwegian it's Åsgard and since English doesn't have the Å (we have A-Z + ÆØÅ = 29 letters total), I don't think Asgard as an Englification of a Norwegification of what is originally a Danification of Old Norse is the worst offense. Islandic is much more similar to the original tounge but that also worked the other way around, probably ten times as many Englishmen have heard the name from Norwegians over the centuries.
One of the things that always fascinates me about these middle eastern terrorist organizations is that they are pretty smart about adapting to technology but, the society they want to create is not likely to ever produce any meaningful technology. It's like they've never thought about the endgame: "Ok, we've killed all the infidels. When will Allah bless my cellphone so it starts working again?"
Uh, you do realize there was a time when Islamic scholars were the best in the world and Europe was in the Dark Ages? They're not Amish, they're not against technology they're against many of the freedoms we have. So was Soviet Russia, they still invented Sputnik and freaked out the US. China isn't exactly a backwater hellhole either, neither is Saudi Arabia despite their ultra-conservative Wahhabism. Now obviously Daesh are revolutionaries and their goal is to fight and win, they need soldiers and martyrs not scientists and teachers. What you see today isn't representative of what society would be like if they won, it wouldn't be pretty but it wouldn't be all Quran studies, combat training and IEDs.
I thought I would resent having to pay too much for hardware that I know full well I can get for half the price. But after a year? Not a bit. Best damn overpriced kit I ever forked out for, and I'd do it again in a heartbeat. Damn straight I would.
That's the luxury of having a comfortable economy. You wouldn't do it if money was tight, but if it's bugging you, it can be fixed by money and you have the money just do it. You'll be a lot happier fixing them than you will be for saving the money or trying to compensate the bad with the good, even if objectively it doesn't make much sense. You're doing it for yourself and it's what you feel that matters. If you don't give a shit about Armani suits and don't want to impress anyone who do don't buy one but if you want to eat at a Michelin restaurant go for it. But if you'd rather have a burger and a beer just do that, don't let the price dictate what you're supposed to want. That goes in the negative direction too, you decide how much fixing the problem is worth to you. Not anybody else.
Can anyone explain why copyright infringement is a criminal offense? Except for the obvious. (Powerful Hollywood got the laws they paid for).
Redress or punishment or a little of both. If my kid accidentally dents your car playing, I'm liable for damages but not guilty of a crime. If I steal your car and wreck it I'm liable for the damage and guilty of the theft. If I drive drunk and get pulled over I'm guilty of a DUI but not liable since there was no damage or victims. Most things you do on purpose are both, if I smashed your car with a baseball bat it's obviously no longer an accident. Civil law is mainly intended for disputes and disagreements, if you intentionally break the law then it's usually the criminal system's job to deal with that.
Why are people still using something that the authors of same apparently think is compromised?
Because if they really found a serious bug they'd either patch it or tell people where it is and why it needs fixing. The whole "there's a problem here, but I won't tell you what it is", "trust Microsoft, switch to Bitlocker" and so on was just screaming "there's something we can't tell you". It's designed to ruin their credibility so that nobody would trust another Truecrypt release. Why would they do that? The only logical explanation I can think of is that somebody was trying to force them to add a backdoor and this was their way to permanently refuse. That makes the 7.1a the last good version, not one you should throw away. And nobody's found this alleged compromise, so what... they found something extremely cleverly hidden backdoor but decided to not give the slightest hint? Nothing they said makes any sense, which I think was exactly the point. It's nonsense and shouldn't be trusted at all.
What is it about presidents at the end of their second terms that they love to float space goals?
Because it's a bonus shot for their legacy. If it doesn't happen, nobody will remember. If it does happen, they'll get their place in America's return to space. Part of being a politician is pretending to be a leader, even when you're just pointing out a path you didn't take yourself but hope that your successors will follow so you get some credit for setting the path.
An NDA does not provide protection. What it does is confirm which parts of your machine and firmware cannot be trusted. Choosing to base their machine around an Intel chip was perhaps the greatest mistake they made.
Neither does documentation of the API, unless you have the actual transistor circuitry blueprints and can verify that the chips are built according to them the hardware can do pretty much anything in secret. Open source firmware on closed source hardware doesn't really change much, you don't really control it anyway just the driver code that runs on the CPU. Well, if you can trust the CPU that is.
Dont get me wrong here, I think research should continue, but now is not the time to be investing research dollars on fancy humanoid bodies. That money is much better spent on actual machine learning, machne language, and machine vision research
I disagree, but only because I think simulating human physics and robotics are worthwhile studies in their own right with or without AI. For example we're working a ton on making CGI actors, game characters, VR etc. that look and move realistically. Many others are working on making humanoid robots for various forms of interaction and assistance. That said, the projects that really advance the state of the art often work on some very small details like facial expressions or a humanoid hand or a walk that looks natural, pairing a cheap chatbot with cheap animatronics in a fancy mannequin doesn't really advance anything.
I'm curious to see how they'll handle winter though... if they can drive a road like this or if they'll need constant road markers like this, though either way I expect it'll be simple reflectors not any active technology. In the winter we tend to drive roads where it just isn't very obvious where the road even is.
you mean the freedom to be a white supremacist neo-nazi hate monger
Sure, and also the freedom to be a lying leftard knee-jerk SJW. They go hand in hand, and fuck you for sniveling about it.
Yep, by attempting character assassination rather than trying to invalidate his point you are practising your own form of censorship. Censorship is not just done by governments, companies, religious organisations, communities and individuals can all be censors, all it requires is that a dissenting opinion be suppressed by force.
If that wasn't the pot calling the kettle black... The pro-censorship position has always been to declare certain things to be Truth and not to be questioned because even questioning the premise is offensive. Like when it's "All races are equal" vs "All races are not equal" only one answer is correct and acceptable. Any other answer is to be silenced, if not by law then by harassment, intimidation and blaming the speech for the violent, lawless actions of others until the person accepts the one Truth and stops offending people with his or her foul, non-conform ideas and opinions. Today we call these things like "politically correct", SJWs and "safe spaces".
The concept is hardly new, a hundred years ago "Homosexuality is an abomination" and "Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior" might have been the Truths and those who questioned it perverts, sinners, apostates, heretics and blasphemers. Different names, same truthers. Free speech is the opposite of imposing truths, no matter how controversial or offensive your ideas are you have the right to have them and argue for them. That there are no holy cows, no taboos that can not be challenged. And we hope that good conquers evil in the end, depending on who we think are right and wrong but not by banishing it. This is Voltaire's "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it".
The alternative is to say that people can't deal with free speech, that it corrupts and destroys individuals and societies. Everything from a kid being called mean things online until he or she kills himself to how Hitler said so much shit about Jews to enable the Holocaust. I can't guarantee that the free exchange of speech will lead to a good and inclusive society or the right ideas winning, but I think it's the lesser evil compared to a weaponized attitude to speech where it should be a controlled substance and the majority defines what is and isn't acceptable. Mostly because it doesn't change people's true opinion and gives the claims of being oppressed and silenced validity.
I'm sure there's some "fire and brimstone" preachers that think I'll be burning in hell, but I don't need a safe space from their hate speech. My life is my own and I'm the one deciding how to live it and what gives it purpose and meaning. And that's what people need, it's to have self confidence not being so frail and insecure about their own life that the world shatters every time someone invades their safe space with a dissenting opinion. That of course doesn't mean we should stop caring or to help those who need support or to argue against the things we disagree with. But I think everyone needs a "screw you, it's my life" attitude at their core. Because people will disagree with you.
That has nothing to do with the instruction sets, it has to do with the fact that x86 got its big boost from the IBM PC and the clones of it, which were all pretty similar machines so that MS-DOS and its successors would Just Work on them, while ARM got its big boost from phones/tablets/embedded boxes, where the vendor supplied some or all of the OS, and they didn't care much about having to tweak the OS for the next machine.
Not to mention the fact that computers have always had all sorts of expansion cards and peripherals so you needed a general system to discover what you have installed right now and what it's capable of, as well as a layer of OEMs mixing and matching. A phone comes as one fixed hardware package, often a complete system on a chip. You can get away with a blob that assumes that's the way everything is and unlike PCs it seems acceptable that they go out of support after a few years.
Last I checked, the trucking industry don't use cars, but if you ask Tesla, trucks are ripe for being fully electric and more more cost effective already.
Because Tesla X is totally the best choice for pulling a trailer, right?
Yes - Europe already solved that problem decades ago - it's called public transport.
If you live in fairly populated areas, yes. It's a lot better than in the US - not a very high bar - but in rural areas you definitively want a car in Europe too. Even if you could say 80% of the problem is solved, 20% is very much unsolved.
It doesn't really matter - even if you assume the worst case scenario (basically, just burn coal out your ears), it's still a way way more efficient scenario than every individual car having a shitty efficiency ICE in it.
Maybe if you said emissions efficiency... from what I understand the higher production efficiency gets eaten up by converting combustion (momentum) to electricity, transport, charging losses, parasitic losses when it's not running and so on. The nice thing is that you could have other energy sources like solar, wind and other renewables but if you're just centralizing the fossil fuel consumption it's not much of a win at all.
I think it's possible to convert most people, most places to EVs like maybe 2/3 or 3/4. But I think trying to get rid of all of them is crazy, they have capabilities that would take massive advances to equal. Even the people who want to be greener rarely want to go backwards in standard of living.
Managers don't know enough about the ins and outs of the job, so they substitute butts warming seats instead of proper performance metrics.
Even the good performance metrics would show that my productivity comes in squirts, I don't work on an assembly line where time equals work. I could have thought long and hard, designed and redesigned, made prototypes and tests but still not found a good solution or I could have done nothing at all. The difference is that I don't have any interest in faking time at the office, I'd still be stuck there. At home more time off would be more time off. If the reward goes up, the risk/reward ratio goes down. Sometimes they really do want to know you've been sitting at a desk for 8 hours and really tried.
From what I understand the religious right is a major force in US politics, which means a Republican candidate pretty blatantly trying to sleep with someone else's wife in a crude way is like a lead balloon to his candidacy. Even his running mate had to stab him in the back to save his own career. At this point I think it would take a miracle to keep Hillary from becoming POTUS, if anyone had an agenda to keep her out of office they'd have fired all bullets to make Sanders the Democratic candidate. Plus I think she'll get a few bonus points from being the first female President, regardless of her actual worthiness. If Trump recovers from this one, I'd nickname him Lazarus...
Removing math from programing? Is he/she serious? It's required to understand the functions and computer languages. Without it you can't properly make code!
It is essential to some branches that go off in the CS direction, but unless you're implementing a math problem you often don't really need much algebra, geometry, trigonometry and so on. There's a lot of software that essentially does:
1. Receive data via GUI, message or service bus 2. Do lots of "trivial" workflows and business logic 3. Manage permissions, bad data, exceptions and errors 4. Produce and export results and reports
Maybe in fairy tale land this sounds like something that pretty much does itself via an "expert system" driven by a "rules engine" that you wire up without being a "real developer" but that's what most developers I've met do. They're not working on new HFT algorithms for Wall Street or search algorithms for Google or the next-gen audio/photo/video codec. Mostly is far more "trivial" systems like processing your bank transactions, insurance claims, e-tail orders or sending you the power bill. They tend to get ugly and complex, but not in the deep math sense.
What do you mean if? Go back and watch "Selma" and you'll see that even in the 1960s they were looking to identify the movers and shakers and where they were going to stir up trouble with wiretaps. This is the same on steroids, same way stock robots try to analyze if people generally talk positive or negative about a stock without really understanding the news. If it's building up to a frenzy and a riot, there will have to be a lot of buzz in social media up front. Without knowing what they exactly are, I'm sure that with big data you'll find the words or phrases that indicate it's really going down and not just a bunch of keyboard warriors talking big. And the level of coordination required means you'll have the where and when repeated many times to many different people.
What you choose to do about it really depends on who you are, what you want and what you're capable of. Maybe you just want to keep the situation under control, maybe you want it to get out of control so you can justify coming in to crush it, maybe you want to arrest a few leaders and scare people from showing up in the first place. The last one would actually be the creepiest, crushing riots is public and messy. Snuffing them out before they even start is silent but deadly. If you're a foreign intelligence agency though, would you like to warn about it to allies? Incite riots in unfriendly states? Who knows. On the other hand, the speed information spreads might also lead to bigger and faster flash mobs than before so I'm not sure if it's really easier or harder to get the word out.
Hand an artist a pencil and he'll do amazing things. I have a friend that can do a fantastic touch screen drawing in less than a minute just to send a Snapchat joke. Sure using MS Paint instead of Photoshop would be like running with a lead vest, but I don't think you're fooling anyone by blaming the tools. It'd be like blaming poor code on the lack of an IDE, would anyone here buy that? No. Unless you're talking to a PHB, in which case you can blame whatever you want.
The human eye can see way beyond 30 fps, even over 60. Find a videogame like mafia 3 which is capped at 30 fps, then go play something else like the new Doom you will see the difference
Games are not a good test because they don't do motion blur, they have variable rendering rates and your perception is more tied to the length of the input feedback loop than the actual motion. If you take some silly high frame rate video like 1000 FPS and blur frames together to produce lower FPS video you'll find that most people cap out around 35-40 FPS. Not if you drop 24 out of 25 frames, that'll look choppy as hell like low FPS in a video game. But 25 frames blurred together to make one will be near visually transparent, people aren't able to pick out the individual frames. Of course this assumes theoretical screens that don't suffer any form of ghosting, in the real world you actually want a bit higher FPS to compensate. But for the cinema experience I think HFR movies with 48 FPS is roughly as smooth as it gets. You can certainly see object that appear for a shorter time, but you can't say if they were there 1ms or 2ms or 5ms.
Actually I read about this in another article and it has 8 DisplayPort connectors in the back, probably acts like a video wall to the computer. As far as I know there's no single connector that can do this even at the prototype stage.
If those are requirements it seems one of those barebones NUCs attached to a VESA mount on the back of your monitor would fit the bill. I got one of those for my mom, added an 8GB stick so it has 2+8 instead of 8+8 and 64GB SSD. Both CPU and GPU are pretty anemic but it's very responsive under light load.
Slashdot Mirror
The most obvious are that taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize the consequences if your unhealthy lifestyle. If you smoke and get lung cancer, tough shit. Drink and ruin your liver, same deal. Obesity related medical issues are your own responsibility as well. Also, mandatory requirement that if you want to use the system, you're automatically an organ donor. Throw in some tax deductions (or alternatively just higher taxes for anyone who wouldn't get the "deduction") for people who generally try to stay in reasonable health and it's a reasonable system.
At this point I think it would be wise to point out that everybody dies sometime, somehow and old people tend to have a lot of medical problems. Most people dying from "lifestyle diseases" make it through most their taxable income years, if you drop dead from cardiac arrest at 60 you're still probably cheaper than a fitness freak that goes down fighting at 90 after a decade of deteriorating health going in and out of hospital. And to put it bluntly, very often it doesn't matter how or when it's a matter of whether there's something to be done. I've heard stories of apparently healthy people going to bed and simply not waking up, game over. Very cheap, very easy just issue the death certificate and move on. Others are caught in critical condition and spend days or weeks on the brink of death. There's a huge, huge variation that means the risk and payout won't correlate well no matter what you do.
The other part is, do you really want a society counting the number of beers and smoke and BMI and any risky or stupid activity you do? Orwell would love it, but no just no. I think you should realized that the main reason it won't get crazy abused is that being sick and injured is not fun and generally painful and uncomfortable. And you will spend a lot of time waiting in line unless you're in critical need and in general, you just don't cut yourself to get a free band-aid. Not when it's only going to be put on a bleed wound, it's not like you can keep them and sell them. Now benefits, there's a lot of fraud with disability benefits, a little with some highly regulated drugs that are monitored carefully... but healthcare in general? People are there because they need it, not because they want to.
Of course, the ability of the residents in wealthier neighborhoods to actually PAY for the faster internet service has nothing to do with it... Next up on Slashdot, "This just in, Tesla has yet to build a new car showroom in a lower-income neighborhood!"
Yeah, that and population density (customers/meters of cable) are the two driving factors. But unless they get an incentive to cover everything they have a tendency to micromanage, in the street I used to live it there was a cable company survey. But since most of us already had satellite since there was no cable, they skipped our street. I bet a lot of poor neighborhoods get that, we're rolling out service in the district/city but not your area/block. It cements a divide because there's nothing stopping anybody from buying a Tesla even if they're the odd duck in an area, but if there's no service there's no service.
Here in Norway when they rolled out fiber in the area of our cabin it was partially supported by a public grant. The grant had as a condition that all permanent residents in the county that wanted fiber had to receive it. Most lone farms and such understood this was their now or never moment and signed up. I think that was a good thing, no 70% roll-out and the last 30% when hell freezes over we're basically done. They left stumps so they can hook up any they passed by and if there's a handful of strays they'll probably not be a dick and send out of a ditch digger.
The last survey now showed we have 44% fiber coverage, up from 28% in 2015 and it's mainly DSL that is hurting, cable usually offers enough speed that it's not worth doing a cable -> fiber conversion. But it's all converging on fiber for new deployments, whether it's old telco, old TV company or old power company doing it. Give it another 5 years and it'll be the new normal, I'm guessing we'll soon switch the fund for giving phone access to all over to giving broadband for all, some political parties already have 100 Mbps for everyone by 2025 in their platform.
I think you're misunderstanding this. You already get a full refund no matter what you do, but if you get a different Samsung device, Samsung will give you $100 (well actually $75 since they were already offering $25 previously) credit. It's a smart move because as much as $100 costs for the ~2 million Note 7 customers out there, they stand to lose a lot more if people start avoiding their brand due to this. Doing right by your customers is an important part of retaining them.
I can understand making one fuck-up, doesn't matter if you're NASA occasionally a bug slips by. But when the problem is known and they can't even fix it right so the replacements start catching fire I'm thinking burn me once shame on you, burn me twice shame on me. They obviously have some really bad QA problems to work out and I wouldn't buy another even if they offered me $100 off. It wouldn't be a permanent shitlist or anything, but I'd rather someone else be the guinea pig. If I was in the market for a new phone I certainly wouldn't consider a Samsung now. I think they're way past "doing right" and in "emergency damage control" mode trying to avoid a total meltdown.
Success comes from being good at negotiation your next job... being known as a hard and competent worker doesn't hurt your position in that negotiation, but it's only a small part of the equation.
Unless you're in one of the few lines of work that has a portfolio, what do you really have to prove your skills? It's one thing what your boss and coworkers know but what does a prospective employer really know? The CV is padded, the job title inflated, the references cherry-picked and the last person you want them to talk to is usually your current boss. The interview usually says more about your experience and comfort level being interviewed than your actual skills. If I put myself in an interviewer's shoes - and I've been that a few times but not often - it's really hard to tell the people from substance from the fluff pieces. Of course you have to know something and not be a total bust, but it's not like this is immediately obvious. And if you're networking instead, well that mostly depends on how well you've built and maintained your networks not your actual skills. It should count more than it actually does.
In modern Norwegian it's Åsgard and since English doesn't have the Å (we have A-Z + ÆØÅ = 29 letters total), I don't think Asgard as an Englification of a Norwegification of what is originally a Danification of Old Norse is the worst offense. Islandic is much more similar to the original tounge but that also worked the other way around, probably ten times as many Englishmen have heard the name from Norwegians over the centuries.
One of the things that always fascinates me about these middle eastern terrorist organizations is that they are pretty smart about adapting to technology but, the society they want to create is not likely to ever produce any meaningful technology. It's like they've never thought about the endgame: "Ok, we've killed all the infidels. When will Allah bless my cellphone so it starts working again?"
Uh, you do realize there was a time when Islamic scholars were the best in the world and Europe was in the Dark Ages? They're not Amish, they're not against technology they're against many of the freedoms we have. So was Soviet Russia, they still invented Sputnik and freaked out the US. China isn't exactly a backwater hellhole either, neither is Saudi Arabia despite their ultra-conservative Wahhabism. Now obviously Daesh are revolutionaries and their goal is to fight and win, they need soldiers and martyrs not scientists and teachers. What you see today isn't representative of what society would be like if they won, it wouldn't be pretty but it wouldn't be all Quran studies, combat training and IEDs.
I thought I would resent having to pay too much for hardware that I know full well I can get for half the price. But after a year? Not a bit. Best damn overpriced kit I ever forked out for, and I'd do it again in a heartbeat. Damn straight I would.
That's the luxury of having a comfortable economy. You wouldn't do it if money was tight, but if it's bugging you, it can be fixed by money and you have the money just do it. You'll be a lot happier fixing them than you will be for saving the money or trying to compensate the bad with the good, even if objectively it doesn't make much sense. You're doing it for yourself and it's what you feel that matters. If you don't give a shit about Armani suits and don't want to impress anyone who do don't buy one but if you want to eat at a Michelin restaurant go for it. But if you'd rather have a burger and a beer just do that, don't let the price dictate what you're supposed to want. That goes in the negative direction too, you decide how much fixing the problem is worth to you. Not anybody else.
Can anyone explain why copyright infringement is a criminal offense? Except for the obvious. (Powerful Hollywood got the laws they paid for).
Redress or punishment or a little of both. If my kid accidentally dents your car playing, I'm liable for damages but not guilty of a crime. If I steal your car and wreck it I'm liable for the damage and guilty of the theft. If I drive drunk and get pulled over I'm guilty of a DUI but not liable since there was no damage or victims. Most things you do on purpose are both, if I smashed your car with a baseball bat it's obviously no longer an accident. Civil law is mainly intended for disputes and disagreements, if you intentionally break the law then it's usually the criminal system's job to deal with that.
Why are people still using something that the authors of same apparently think is compromised?
Because if they really found a serious bug they'd either patch it or tell people where it is and why it needs fixing. The whole "there's a problem here, but I won't tell you what it is", "trust Microsoft, switch to Bitlocker" and so on was just screaming "there's something we can't tell you". It's designed to ruin their credibility so that nobody would trust another Truecrypt release. Why would they do that? The only logical explanation I can think of is that somebody was trying to force them to add a backdoor and this was their way to permanently refuse. That makes the 7.1a the last good version, not one you should throw away. And nobody's found this alleged compromise, so what... they found something extremely cleverly hidden backdoor but decided to not give the slightest hint? Nothing they said makes any sense, which I think was exactly the point. It's nonsense and shouldn't be trusted at all.
What is it about presidents at the end of their second terms that they love to float space goals?
Because it's a bonus shot for their legacy. If it doesn't happen, nobody will remember. If it does happen, they'll get their place in America's return to space. Part of being a politician is pretending to be a leader, even when you're just pointing out a path you didn't take yourself but hope that your successors will follow so you get some credit for setting the path.
An NDA does not provide protection. What it does is confirm which parts of your machine and firmware cannot be trusted. Choosing to base their machine around an Intel chip was perhaps the greatest mistake they made.
Neither does documentation of the API, unless you have the actual transistor circuitry blueprints and can verify that the chips are built according to them the hardware can do pretty much anything in secret. Open source firmware on closed source hardware doesn't really change much, you don't really control it anyway just the driver code that runs on the CPU. Well, if you can trust the CPU that is.
Dont get me wrong here, I think research should continue, but now is not the time to be investing research dollars on fancy humanoid bodies. That money is much better spent on actual machine learning, machne language, and machine vision research
I disagree, but only because I think simulating human physics and robotics are worthwhile studies in their own right with or without AI. For example we're working a ton on making CGI actors, game characters, VR etc. that look and move realistically. Many others are working on making humanoid robots for various forms of interaction and assistance. That said, the projects that really advance the state of the art often work on some very small details like facial expressions or a humanoid hand or a walk that looks natural, pairing a cheap chatbot with cheap animatronics in a fancy mannequin doesn't really advance anything.
I'm curious to see how they'll handle winter though... if they can drive a road like this or if they'll need constant road markers like this, though either way I expect it'll be simple reflectors not any active technology. In the winter we tend to drive roads where it just isn't very obvious where the road even is.
you mean the freedom to be a white supremacist neo-nazi hate monger
Sure, and also the freedom to be a lying leftard knee-jerk SJW. They go hand in hand, and fuck you for sniveling about it.
Yep, by attempting character assassination rather than trying to invalidate his point you are practising your own form of censorship. Censorship is not just done by governments, companies, religious organisations, communities and individuals can all be censors, all it requires is that a dissenting opinion be suppressed by force.
If that wasn't the pot calling the kettle black... The pro-censorship position has always been to declare certain things to be Truth and not to be questioned because even questioning the premise is offensive. Like when it's "All races are equal" vs "All races are not equal" only one answer is correct and acceptable. Any other answer is to be silenced, if not by law then by harassment, intimidation and blaming the speech for the violent, lawless actions of others until the person accepts the one Truth and stops offending people with his or her foul, non-conform ideas and opinions. Today we call these things like "politically correct", SJWs and "safe spaces".
The concept is hardly new, a hundred years ago "Homosexuality is an abomination" and "Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior" might have been the Truths and those who questioned it perverts, sinners, apostates, heretics and blasphemers. Different names, same truthers. Free speech is the opposite of imposing truths, no matter how controversial or offensive your ideas are you have the right to have them and argue for them. That there are no holy cows, no taboos that can not be challenged. And we hope that good conquers evil in the end, depending on who we think are right and wrong but not by banishing it. This is Voltaire's "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it".
The alternative is to say that people can't deal with free speech, that it corrupts and destroys individuals and societies. Everything from a kid being called mean things online until he or she kills himself to how Hitler said so much shit about Jews to enable the Holocaust. I can't guarantee that the free exchange of speech will lead to a good and inclusive society or the right ideas winning, but I think it's the lesser evil compared to a weaponized attitude to speech where it should be a controlled substance and the majority defines what is and isn't acceptable. Mostly because it doesn't change people's true opinion and gives the claims of being oppressed and silenced validity.
I'm sure there's some "fire and brimstone" preachers that think I'll be burning in hell, but I don't need a safe space from their hate speech. My life is my own and I'm the one deciding how to live it and what gives it purpose and meaning. And that's what people need, it's to have self confidence not being so frail and insecure about their own life that the world shatters every time someone invades their safe space with a dissenting opinion. That of course doesn't mean we should stop caring or to help those who need support or to argue against the things we disagree with. But I think everyone needs a "screw you, it's my life" attitude at their core. Because people will disagree with you.
That has nothing to do with the instruction sets, it has to do with the fact that x86 got its big boost from the IBM PC and the clones of it, which were all pretty similar machines so that MS-DOS and its successors would Just Work on them, while ARM got its big boost from phones/tablets/embedded boxes, where the vendor supplied some or all of the OS, and they didn't care much about having to tweak the OS for the next machine.
Not to mention the fact that computers have always had all sorts of expansion cards and peripherals so you needed a general system to discover what you have installed right now and what it's capable of, as well as a layer of OEMs mixing and matching. A phone comes as one fixed hardware package, often a complete system on a chip. You can get away with a blob that assumes that's the way everything is and unlike PCs it seems acceptable that they go out of support after a few years.
Last I checked, the trucking industry don't use cars, but if you ask Tesla, trucks are ripe for being fully electric and more more cost effective already.
Because Tesla X is totally the best choice for pulling a trailer, right?
Yes - Europe already solved that problem decades ago - it's called public transport.
If you live in fairly populated areas, yes. It's a lot better than in the US - not a very high bar - but in rural areas you definitively want a car in Europe too. Even if you could say 80% of the problem is solved, 20% is very much unsolved.
It doesn't really matter - even if you assume the worst case scenario (basically, just burn coal out your ears), it's still a way way more efficient scenario than every individual car having a shitty efficiency ICE in it.
Maybe if you said emissions efficiency... from what I understand the higher production efficiency gets eaten up by converting combustion (momentum) to electricity, transport, charging losses, parasitic losses when it's not running and so on. The nice thing is that you could have other energy sources like solar, wind and other renewables but if you're just centralizing the fossil fuel consumption it's not much of a win at all.
I think it's possible to convert most people, most places to EVs like maybe 2/3 or 3/4. But I think trying to get rid of all of them is crazy, they have capabilities that would take massive advances to equal. Even the people who want to be greener rarely want to go backwards in standard of living.
The *fucking gall* to go around calling people *resource*. Fucking retards.
Kinder than me, I usually say we're all prostitutes either from the neck down or the neck up. Work is basically pimping out your brain for cash.
Managers don't know enough about the ins and outs of the job, so they substitute butts warming seats instead of proper performance metrics.
Even the good performance metrics would show that my productivity comes in squirts, I don't work on an assembly line where time equals work. I could have thought long and hard, designed and redesigned, made prototypes and tests but still not found a good solution or I could have done nothing at all. The difference is that I don't have any interest in faking time at the office, I'd still be stuck there. At home more time off would be more time off. If the reward goes up, the risk/reward ratio goes down. Sometimes they really do want to know you've been sitting at a desk for 8 hours and really tried.
From what I understand the religious right is a major force in US politics, which means a Republican candidate pretty blatantly trying to sleep with someone else's wife in a crude way is like a lead balloon to his candidacy. Even his running mate had to stab him in the back to save his own career. At this point I think it would take a miracle to keep Hillary from becoming POTUS, if anyone had an agenda to keep her out of office they'd have fired all bullets to make Sanders the Democratic candidate. Plus I think she'll get a few bonus points from being the first female President, regardless of her actual worthiness. If Trump recovers from this one, I'd nickname him Lazarus...
Removing math from programing? Is he/she serious? It's required to understand the functions and computer languages. Without it you can't properly make code!
It is essential to some branches that go off in the CS direction, but unless you're implementing a math problem you often don't really need much algebra, geometry, trigonometry and so on. There's a lot of software that essentially does:
1. Receive data via GUI, message or service bus
2. Do lots of "trivial" workflows and business logic
3. Manage permissions, bad data, exceptions and errors
4. Produce and export results and reports
Maybe in fairy tale land this sounds like something that pretty much does itself via an "expert system" driven by a "rules engine" that you wire up without being a "real developer" but that's what most developers I've met do. They're not working on new HFT algorithms for Wall Street or search algorithms for Google or the next-gen audio/photo/video codec. Mostly is far more "trivial" systems like processing your bank transactions, insurance claims, e-tail orders or sending you the power bill. They tend to get ugly and complex, but not in the deep math sense.
What do you mean if? Go back and watch "Selma" and you'll see that even in the 1960s they were looking to identify the movers and shakers and where they were going to stir up trouble with wiretaps. This is the same on steroids, same way stock robots try to analyze if people generally talk positive or negative about a stock without really understanding the news. If it's building up to a frenzy and a riot, there will have to be a lot of buzz in social media up front. Without knowing what they exactly are, I'm sure that with big data you'll find the words or phrases that indicate it's really going down and not just a bunch of keyboard warriors talking big. And the level of coordination required means you'll have the where and when repeated many times to many different people.
What you choose to do about it really depends on who you are, what you want and what you're capable of. Maybe you just want to keep the situation under control, maybe you want it to get out of control so you can justify coming in to crush it, maybe you want to arrest a few leaders and scare people from showing up in the first place. The last one would actually be the creepiest, crushing riots is public and messy. Snuffing them out before they even start is silent but deadly. If you're a foreign intelligence agency though, would you like to warn about it to allies? Incite riots in unfriendly states? Who knows. On the other hand, the speed information spreads might also lead to bigger and faster flash mobs than before so I'm not sure if it's really easier or harder to get the word out.
Hand an artist a pencil and he'll do amazing things. I have a friend that can do a fantastic touch screen drawing in less than a minute just to send a Snapchat joke. Sure using MS Paint instead of Photoshop would be like running with a lead vest, but I don't think you're fooling anyone by blaming the tools. It'd be like blaming poor code on the lack of an IDE, would anyone here buy that? No. Unless you're talking to a PHB, in which case you can blame whatever you want.
The human eye can see way beyond 30 fps, even over 60. Find a videogame like mafia 3 which is capped at 30 fps, then go play something else like the new Doom you will see the difference
Games are not a good test because they don't do motion blur, they have variable rendering rates and your perception is more tied to the length of the input feedback loop than the actual motion. If you take some silly high frame rate video like 1000 FPS and blur frames together to produce lower FPS video you'll find that most people cap out around 35-40 FPS. Not if you drop 24 out of 25 frames, that'll look choppy as hell like low FPS in a video game. But 25 frames blurred together to make one will be near visually transparent, people aren't able to pick out the individual frames. Of course this assumes theoretical screens that don't suffer any form of ghosting, in the real world you actually want a bit higher FPS to compensate. But for the cinema experience I think HFR movies with 48 FPS is roughly as smooth as it gets. You can certainly see object that appear for a shorter time, but you can't say if they were there 1ms or 2ms or 5ms.
Actually I read about this in another article and it has 8 DisplayPort connectors in the back, probably acts like a video wall to the computer. As far as I know there's no single connector that can do this even at the prototype stage.
If those are requirements it seems one of those barebones NUCs attached to a VESA mount on the back of your monitor would fit the bill. I got one of those for my mom, added an 8GB stick so it has 2+8 instead of 8+8 and 64GB SSD. Both CPU and GPU are pretty anemic but it's very responsive under light load.