Nobody. But speaking for myself, I'm not about to hide the fact that I think overly devout theists are mentally ill. So I guess I'll never get elected.
if religious nuts would just keep it as their business, instead of always making it everyone else's business, religion wouldn't be such a fucking problem
But they gain power by spreading their religion. That's why they fight against contraception, push for school prayer and other youth indoctrination, fight any science that points out how ridiculous their mythology is, have missionaries, etc.
Indeed. In fact, they've not been enforceable for over 145 years per the Fourteenth Amendment and Marbury v. Madison (Anything repugnant to the Constitution is void from it's beginnings...)
Bullshit they haven't been enforceable. The Fourteenth didn't eliminate state sponsored discrimination upon its passage. Issues like Jim Crow laws persisted for another hundred years after that and was supported by the Supreme Court in rulings. The 14th Amendment is one of the most heavily litigated parts of the US Constitution.
I believe that contravenes the US Constitution's ban on religious tests to hold office (Article VI, paragraph 3).
Which matters not one bit in actual practice. There are 7 states (Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas) where the state constitution effectively prohibits atheists from holding public office. Arkansas furthermore prohibits atheists from serving as a witness in court. While this technically hasn't been enforced in a long time, the law hasn't been changed either.
Plus good luck getting elected if you are honest about being an atheist. It's basically considered political suicide in most of the country.
I'd just as rather have good night vision with glasses at this stage.
That's fine but lasik doesn't necessarily hurt your night vision. I had good night vision both before and after the procedure. Some have different results but most people have night vision pretty similar to what they had afterwards post recovery. I had a bit of haloing for about 2 years afterwards but it went away.
Lasik does not cure the need most people have as they get older for reading glasses. (Called presbyopia - caused by a hardening of the lenses) Chances are I'll need reading glasses someday but after wearing glasses for 17 years I couldn't be more glad to be rid of them.
I can get glasses that last for 5+ years for a couple hundred dollars, vs. lots more for surgery with its inherent risks. My glasses are generally only annoying when I work outside & get sweaty.
Cost isn't really a meaningful comparison here. I wore glasses for 17 years before having lasik. Best money I ever spent but I didn't do it because of the cost and I would have paid double or more of what I did especially in hindsight. I did it for quality of life. Having to wear glasses is an annoying, albeit usually minor handicap. I'm very glad to not have to wear them anymore. This may not describe you of course and that is ok too.
Maybe it's just silly, but I'm really scared of someone shooting a laser into my eye. I don't want to be that 0.01% of cases that has something horrible happen.
It's not silly, just very unlikely. I've had the surgery and I won't kid you that the idea of someone cutting my eye still makes me a bit squeamish even today. That said I still consider my lasik procedure to be the best money I've ever spent. One of the partners in our company had it too and feels similarly.
As with any surgery it is 100% appropriate to be cautious and ask a lot of questions. If you still are uncomfortable with the idea it's ok not to get the surgery. I'm fairly active and it helps with sports I play but if you aren't bothered by glasses and they don't cause you problems then there is no need to get the procedure.
I had Lasik back in 1999 in my late 20s. Best money I ever spent. Wore glasses for 17 years prior to the surgery. Pre-surgery my vision was about 4 diopters in each eye with some mild astigmatism in one eye. My correct vision remains better than 20/20 15 years later. It's not for everyone and it doesn't mean I eventually won't need glasses again but I'm very glad I got it done. I've never benefited more from anything I've ever bought.
I did have some mild haloing at night for about 2-3 years afterwards but it went away. Took me about 6 months to stop reflexively trying to push my glasses back up my nose even though they weren't there anymore. Eyes were a little dry for a few weeks afterwards but nothing serious. They tell you to keep your eyes closed for a day or so afterwards and they mean it so follow the post operative procedures carefully.
It's not for everyone. Statistically the outcomes are very positive if you are a candidate but there is some risk as with any surgery. If you are comfortable wearing glasses and don't need improved vision then I'd say don't worry about it. I play a lot of sports and it helped a lot for me but some people would benefit less.
Actually, all decent ones do, but the key might be labeled "Meta" or "Cmd" or a funky icon something.
Demonstrably not true though I'll freely concede that the majority of keyboards sold have one or something that could serve as one. I know it's not true because I own several better than decent keyboards which lack a Windows key or any equivalent. That said, it's still not a good idea for Windows to presume or depend on the existence of a Windows key. It's fine to use but honestly I don't know anyone who actually uses it, myself included. I'm aware of what it can do and have tried using it a bit but I can honestly say I've never once seen anyone I know closely use the Windows key. Ever. Not kidding even a little bit.
No Macintosh has a windows key and those are fairly popular. Plus just because lots of keyboards have a Windows key doesn't mean the system should assume or be designed to assume that they all have one. Honestly I never use it even when I have it. I just can't figure out how to work it into my workflow in a way that makes sense to me. I use Windows, Mac and Linux machines regularly and utilizing special keys just screws me up. I try to keep things as similar as I can across systems. YMMV of course.
The bigger problem with global shortcut keys is remote desktop tools, VMs etc. Will the global shortcut be picked up by the outer system? the inner system? both? (IME it's usually the outer system but I haven't tried win8 yet) what do I do if I want the other one?
I run Win8 through VNC. It's the outer system that typically picks up the key making it effectively useless. I presume the same would generally be true for a virtual machine but I haven't specifically tried that yet.
Which is not in principle a bad idea. Everyone else did exactly the same thing about that time. Having redundant competing engine designs in different parts of your company is economically not very sane. Why not put all your resources into making one really good engine/drivetrain which can be adapted to specific needs. There of course has to be a clear understanding of when things need to be different and when they don't but that is a solvable problem.
The GM brands became rather superfluous, and consumers were quite lukewarm to the generic "all-in-one" options for GM cars.
And yet they still bought more GM cars than those from any other manufacturer. GM lost market share but they didn't remotely become irrelevant.
GM cars from the 80's are considered to be the worst built and least desirable of the company's history.
That has to do with a lot of factors besides just the drivetrains. They weren't actually worse built than the cars from previous decades (structurally) but the problem was that they weren't really much better. Whereas their competition, particularly the Japanese, were making big advances in quality and taking market share as a result. GM was lazy, arrogant, and sloppy in a lot of ways that they are still paying for today.
I think I understand why they want to do this: Only one code base, less overhead and more profit.
That's the benefit from their end. Plus for the users of Windows they (theoretically) have a more or less consistent experience on each device.
But it is a stupid idea.
Disagree. The *idea* is very smart and to varying degrees Apple and Google are doing the same thing. It makes a lot of sense to have things as similar as possible across your devices. The implementation however is another kettle of fish altogether. Microsoft badly fumbled the implementation. I just started using my first Windows 8 machine recently and it is horrible. Hard to find things, unintuitive, clumsy adaptation of a touch interface onto a keyboard/mouse system. Used to be that Microsoft tried to put their keyboard/mouse system on touch screens and now they've swung the pendulum too far the other direction.
The different devices provide different functions and shouldn't look the same or be the same.
That doesn't mean they can't look and behave similar but your basic point is quite correct. A touch interface can share some but not all features with a keyboard/mouse interface. The OS will need several interfaces and should present the one most optimal (or most preferred) for the equipment available. I don't need big touch screen tiles on my dual monitor non-touch system at work. I don't need a mouse interface for my smartphone. Doesn't mean they can't share certain similarities but the needs of different interfaces must be respected. As you said you don't put a steering wheel on a bicycle.
The special magic thing is to hit the Windows key + X. That brings up a menu that has pretty much everything you'd want to do from a start menu.
First off, that does NOT replicate the start menu. Not even close. More importantly who wants to have to do "special magic things"? Particularly non-intuitive, poorly documented, un-promoted "special magic things" that differ needlessly from previous versions of Windows and require a special keyboard with a Windows key on it. (pro-tip: not all keyboards have Windows keys!) This is change for the sake of change, not change to improve things.
The hilarious thing to me is that the Windows 8/Server 2012 line is ironically the most keyboard centric version of Windows I've used, but all people want to do is bitch about the Modern (Tile) interface that you can completely, totally ignore if you're on something that has a real keyboard and mouse.
No you can't ignore it. You can work around it but you can't completely ignore it.
Also, Windows RT? It's not awful.
Yes it is. Or at least it is awful for something that they called Windows. If it cannot install and run arbitrary Windows applications then it isn't Windows and shouldn't be called Windows. Call it something else because that's what it is. OSX and iOS share some underpinnings but at least Apple wasn't stupid enough to pretend they are the same thing.
Surfaces ship with Office pre-installed.
Swell - because that's the only app anyone ever actually needs. [/sarcasm]
The problem has become so severe that nothing short of an Edward Snowden-style leak may be needed to increase transparency at the DHS.
Such a leak is just as likely to have exactly the opposite effect. The Snowden leak hasn't exactly made the NSA any more forthcoming regarding their activities. No, the ONLY thing that is going to force DHS to be more transparent in the long run is a motivated Congress. Oversight of the executive branch is after all their job. But since the Dems and Reps are so busy trying to grab power they can't be bothered. The judiciary is no help since they have their head stuck in the sand over standing that they are worse than useless. So the executive branch can do whatever the hell they like without consequence until at least one of the other branches of government starts doing their damn job. All a leak is likely to do is show them what they need to do the be even less transparent than they already are.
The point the poster made, which I think is legitimate, is that even a very small earthquake could probably be catastrophic for a collider's integrity and alignment.
That's an engineering issue that would exist no matter where you built the accelerator. You think there aren't fault lines near the LHC? Fermilab's Tevatron is within the New Madrid seismic zone. There basically is no place on earth that doesn't get earthquakes from time to time. You have to engineer the device with this in mind.
Even assuming China has the technical expertise to create that custom component
China almost certainly has a labor force can make the gear or can hire people who can if there are specific skills needed.
does it pass even casual scrutiny to think that China can make a collider of twice the size at one-third the cost?
No. I'm a cost accountant and I can assure you that China will not enjoy any meaningful cost advantages on a project like this. China might have a minor cost advantage due to cheap labor on the digging portion of the project but it wouldn't be hugely cheaper. The biggest costs will be the gear that goes into the accelerator and China enjoys no meaningful cost advantage there. It's all custom electronics and other stuff which is simply very expensive no matter who does it.
That's what it does but not why you would want it. Like others here I'm failing to see any utility for this "feature". It's sort of cool as a technology demo but I just can't see any practical use for this. It does sound like a great way to reduce battery life, slow the interface, and create unnecessary bugs however. Possibly with a motion sickness chaser for some folks!
Which (gasp) you don't need to do if you have, say......a minivan.
Which (gasp) didn't exist when I was a child and yet somehow we managed without. The first vehicles recognizable as a modern minivan came on the market in 1984 and I was close to driving age by then. Prior to that you either had a full sized econoline van, a VW mini-bus, a station wagon or a second car. Worked out just fine. Plus since we didn't actually need the extra seating of a minivan 99% of the time we didn't have to waste fuel driving around a lot of extra unused vehicle all the time. We owned an econoline van when I was really little for a while (didn't need the space though which is why we got rid of it) and then we owned a series of coupes and sedans. Never was a problem getting all the people wherever we needed to go. I rode from the Great Lakes down to Florida several times in the back of a VW Scirocco.
And it's still odd that you chuckle at people saying they need a van immediately after laying out reasons why some people need a pickup instead of an SUV.
I said most people who buy pickups do not actually need a pickup. An SUV or a minivan or a station wagon would suit their needs fine. A pickup is a work vehicle. If you don't haul messy stuff that would trash an interior then you don't need a pickup. You may want a pickup but you don't need it.
A minivan is a convenience for hauling a family, not a necessity. Nothing wrong with buying a minivan since they are hugely practical but most of the people who claim they "need" a minivan are incorrect. I think minivans make a lot of sense even for many people without kids but station wagons or SUVs can accomplish most of the same things just fine. Both my parents still own minivans despite me and my sister having been out of the house for several decades now. But they are a luxury, not a necessity for most people who have them.
For something that is after all, only data? Why would anybody want to wait for a day or two for a piece of plastic when they can access the data instantly online?
Because some things aren't available online (legally). Because you don't have enough bandwidth to get it online. Because you lack the equipment to stream movies to your TV Because some DVDs have features not available to streaming versions. Because you may not have an internet connection at point of viewing Because Netflix's streaming catalog has more holes than shotgunned swiss cheese.
They may not apply to you but there are reasons why someone might prefer a DVD in some cases.
Agreed. I see no reason why this should not be possible in a minivan at least on the highway.
I have to disagree concerning the other points. My minivans have all handled extremely well, with much better footing (being lower to the ground) than any truck I've driven.
The trucks I currently own handle better than any minivan I've driven, not that that is a high bar to cross. Both my parents still own minivans (both Chrysler products) and I drive them now and again and they both handle like crap despite being well maintained. We're talking serious bodyroll and scary cornering. I'm not expecting a sports car but there is definite room for improvement. If you are comparing against some of the larger trucks then you have a point - they have terrible handling due to their use of leaf springs and other suspension technology just this side of wagon wheels. A truck does not have to be particularly low to the ground to handle well so long as the suspension is set up properly. I've had a Honda Ridgeline that handles better than any minivan you can point out except *maybe* the Mazda. Furthermore being low to the ground is a real problem for some of the things I use my trucks for like plowing. I would be unable to get out of my (steep) driveway in the winter using a minivan, especially after a hard snow.
Minivan styling? Whatever. It's a box with a compact drivetrain to maximize interior room. You want swoopy style, it'll hurt the very thing you want the minivan for.
Styling matters. A box can still be an attractive box. You may not care but most people do. Some pickups and SUVs manage to be at least modestly decent looking whereas I think pretty much every minivan looks like crap. They are either shaped like a doorstop or an ugly station wagon stretched vertically.
Yes. There's also the matter of the labor unions and the screwed up politics of both Detroit and the state.
Neither of which are the problem you think they are. Michigan is now a Right To Work state. Whatever your feelings regarding that politically, it is clear evidence that unions are not the power they once were in Michigan. Both legislative houses and the governor are Republican at the moment and (like him or hate him) governor Rick Snyder (former CEO of Gateway Computer BTW) has been pretty business friendly. Frankly I don't run into anyone on a regular basis that is a member of any union.
Furthermore the economic problems in Michigan have cut a lot of the political BS away. Michigan is very actively courting business including a lot of battery business. A lot of business taxes have been eliminated in the last few years. Detroit City is under the control of an emergency manager. The politics there don't really interfere with anyone who is actually bringing money and business to the city. The politics in Michigan are no more screwed up than in any number of other states I could mention, including California. Virtually all the problems in Michigan are simply long term economic trends relating to the state's dependence on the auto industry.
I think it'd be far cheaper to move whatever fragment of that workforce which is still "capable" out of Michigan to California or Texas than it would be to build anything there.
You would be very wrong to believe that. What you are saying is as absurd as saying it would be cheaper to move the workforce for IT out of Silicon Valley. You clearly have no idea what life is actually like in Michigan.
An SUV plus a utility trailer does fill the role of a pickup truck.
It's not the same thing. By your logic a sedan + a utility trailer = a pickup or an electric vehicle + a towed generator = a hybrid. It's a fine solution but its not a perfect substitute. There are plenty of times when a trailer is WAY more trouble than it is worth. I can (and have) stopped by the landscaping yard on my way home when my wife called needing some dirt or stone for the garden. Just had them dump it in the bed of my pickup with a front end loader. No trailer or extra planning necessary since I don't haul my trailer everywhere I go. I also cannot tow a trailer large enough to justify a fifth wheel with any SUV. I also occasionally take my pickup places with stuff in the bed where I wouldn't dream of towing a trailer. Nothing wrong with buying an SUV + a trailer but if you do that then you are confirming what I said which is that you don't actually need a pickup if an SUV can do the jobs you need done. Most people who buy pickups don't actually need one.
The cost of a minivan plus a pickup plus the fuel to commute in the pickup is greater than the cost of an SUV plus a small sedan plus the fuel to commute in the sedan.
The comparison is for 3 cars versus 2 cars per the original post. There is NO way that you will recoup the cost of a third vehicle in fuel. Even if it is a $2000 beater you'll spend more on maintenance than you will recoup in fuel for a third vehicle. Plus they have pickups now that get good fuel economy. There is the Ram 1500 Ecodiesel and next year there will be some 4 cylinder diesel options in light pickups. It's not hard to find a gas powered pickup that gets 20-25mpg combined these days. Even with a Prius you aren't going to recoup *that* much money in gas.
Slashdot Mirror
Who's requiring you to be honest? It's politics.
Nobody. But speaking for myself, I'm not about to hide the fact that I think overly devout theists are mentally ill. So I guess I'll never get elected.
if religious nuts would just keep it as their business, instead of always making it everyone else's business, religion wouldn't be such a fucking problem
But they gain power by spreading their religion. That's why they fight against contraception, push for school prayer and other youth indoctrination, fight any science that points out how ridiculous their mythology is, have missionaries, etc.
Indeed. In fact, they've not been enforceable for over 145 years per the Fourteenth Amendment and Marbury v. Madison (Anything repugnant to the Constitution is void from it's beginnings...)
Bullshit they haven't been enforceable. The Fourteenth didn't eliminate state sponsored discrimination upon its passage. Issues like Jim Crow laws persisted for another hundred years after that and was supported by the Supreme Court in rulings. The 14th Amendment is one of the most heavily litigated parts of the US Constitution.
I believe that contravenes the US Constitution's ban on religious tests to hold office (Article VI, paragraph 3).
Which matters not one bit in actual practice. There are 7 states (Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas) where the state constitution effectively prohibits atheists from holding public office. Arkansas furthermore prohibits atheists from serving as a witness in court. While this technically hasn't been enforced in a long time, the law hasn't been changed either.
Plus good luck getting elected if you are honest about being an atheist. It's basically considered political suicide in most of the country.
I'd just as rather have good night vision with glasses at this stage.
That's fine but lasik doesn't necessarily hurt your night vision. I had good night vision both before and after the procedure. Some have different results but most people have night vision pretty similar to what they had afterwards post recovery. I had a bit of haloing for about 2 years afterwards but it went away.
Lasik does not cure the need most people have as they get older for reading glasses. (Called presbyopia - caused by a hardening of the lenses) Chances are I'll need reading glasses someday but after wearing glasses for 17 years I couldn't be more glad to be rid of them.
I can get glasses that last for 5+ years for a couple hundred dollars, vs. lots more for surgery with its inherent risks. My glasses are generally only annoying when I work outside & get sweaty.
Cost isn't really a meaningful comparison here. I wore glasses for 17 years before having lasik. Best money I ever spent but I didn't do it because of the cost and I would have paid double or more of what I did especially in hindsight. I did it for quality of life. Having to wear glasses is an annoying, albeit usually minor handicap. I'm very glad to not have to wear them anymore. This may not describe you of course and that is ok too.
Maybe it's just silly, but I'm really scared of someone shooting a laser into my eye. I don't want to be that 0.01% of cases that has something horrible happen.
It's not silly, just very unlikely. I've had the surgery and I won't kid you that the idea of someone cutting my eye still makes me a bit squeamish even today. That said I still consider my lasik procedure to be the best money I've ever spent. One of the partners in our company had it too and feels similarly.
As with any surgery it is 100% appropriate to be cautious and ask a lot of questions. If you still are uncomfortable with the idea it's ok not to get the surgery. I'm fairly active and it helps with sports I play but if you aren't bothered by glasses and they don't cause you problems then there is no need to get the procedure.
I had Lasik back in 1999 in my late 20s. Best money I ever spent. Wore glasses for 17 years prior to the surgery. Pre-surgery my vision was about 4 diopters in each eye with some mild astigmatism in one eye. My correct vision remains better than 20/20 15 years later. It's not for everyone and it doesn't mean I eventually won't need glasses again but I'm very glad I got it done. I've never benefited more from anything I've ever bought.
I did have some mild haloing at night for about 2-3 years afterwards but it went away. Took me about 6 months to stop reflexively trying to push my glasses back up my nose even though they weren't there anymore. Eyes were a little dry for a few weeks afterwards but nothing serious. They tell you to keep your eyes closed for a day or so afterwards and they mean it so follow the post operative procedures carefully.
It's not for everyone. Statistically the outcomes are very positive if you are a candidate but there is some risk as with any surgery. If you are comfortable wearing glasses and don't need improved vision then I'd say don't worry about it. I play a lot of sports and it helped a lot for me but some people would benefit less.
Actually, all decent ones do, but the key might be labeled "Meta" or "Cmd" or a funky icon something.
Demonstrably not true though I'll freely concede that the majority of keyboards sold have one or something that could serve as one. I know it's not true because I own several better than decent keyboards which lack a Windows key or any equivalent. That said, it's still not a good idea for Windows to presume or depend on the existence of a Windows key. It's fine to use but honestly I don't know anyone who actually uses it, myself included. I'm aware of what it can do and have tried using it a bit but I can honestly say I've never once seen anyone I know closely use the Windows key. Ever. Not kidding even a little bit.
Not all but certainly the vast majority.
No Macintosh has a windows key and those are fairly popular. Plus just because lots of keyboards have a Windows key doesn't mean the system should assume or be designed to assume that they all have one.
Honestly I never use it even when I have it. I just can't figure out how to work it into my workflow in a way that makes sense to me. I use Windows, Mac and Linux machines regularly and utilizing special keys just screws me up. I try to keep things as similar as I can across systems. YMMV of course.
The bigger problem with global shortcut keys is remote desktop tools, VMs etc. Will the global shortcut be picked up by the outer system? the inner system? both? (IME it's usually the outer system but I haven't tried win8 yet) what do I do if I want the other one?
I run Win8 through VNC. It's the outer system that typically picks up the key making it effectively useless. I presume the same would generally be true for a virtual machine but I haven't specifically tried that yet.
GM in the 80's "unified" all their drivetrains
Which is not in principle a bad idea. Everyone else did exactly the same thing about that time. Having redundant competing engine designs in different parts of your company is economically not very sane. Why not put all your resources into making one really good engine/drivetrain which can be adapted to specific needs. There of course has to be a clear understanding of when things need to be different and when they don't but that is a solvable problem.
The GM brands became rather superfluous, and consumers were quite lukewarm to the generic "all-in-one" options for GM cars.
And yet they still bought more GM cars than those from any other manufacturer. GM lost market share but they didn't remotely become irrelevant.
GM cars from the 80's are considered to be the worst built and least desirable of the company's history.
That has to do with a lot of factors besides just the drivetrains. They weren't actually worse built than the cars from previous decades (structurally) but the problem was that they weren't really much better. Whereas their competition, particularly the Japanese, were making big advances in quality and taking market share as a result. GM was lazy, arrogant, and sloppy in a lot of ways that they are still paying for today.
I think I understand why they want to do this: Only one code base, less overhead and more profit.
That's the benefit from their end. Plus for the users of Windows they (theoretically) have a more or less consistent experience on each device.
But it is a stupid idea.
Disagree. The *idea* is very smart and to varying degrees Apple and Google are doing the same thing. It makes a lot of sense to have things as similar as possible across your devices. The implementation however is another kettle of fish altogether. Microsoft badly fumbled the implementation. I just started using my first Windows 8 machine recently and it is horrible. Hard to find things, unintuitive, clumsy adaptation of a touch interface onto a keyboard/mouse system. Used to be that Microsoft tried to put their keyboard/mouse system on touch screens and now they've swung the pendulum too far the other direction.
The different devices provide different functions and shouldn't look the same or be the same.
That doesn't mean they can't look and behave similar but your basic point is quite correct. A touch interface can share some but not all features with a keyboard/mouse interface. The OS will need several interfaces and should present the one most optimal (or most preferred) for the equipment available. I don't need big touch screen tiles on my dual monitor non-touch system at work. I don't need a mouse interface for my smartphone. Doesn't mean they can't share certain similarities but the needs of different interfaces must be respected. As you said you don't put a steering wheel on a bicycle.
The special magic thing is to hit the Windows key + X. That brings up a menu that has pretty much everything you'd want to do from a start menu.
First off, that does NOT replicate the start menu. Not even close. More importantly who wants to have to do "special magic things"? Particularly non-intuitive, poorly documented, un-promoted "special magic things" that differ needlessly from previous versions of Windows and require a special keyboard with a Windows key on it. (pro-tip: not all keyboards have Windows keys!) This is change for the sake of change, not change to improve things.
The hilarious thing to me is that the Windows 8/Server 2012 line is ironically the most keyboard centric version of Windows I've used, but all people want to do is bitch about the Modern (Tile) interface that you can completely, totally ignore if you're on something that has a real keyboard and mouse.
No you can't ignore it. You can work around it but you can't completely ignore it.
Also, Windows RT? It's not awful.
Yes it is. Or at least it is awful for something that they called Windows. If it cannot install and run arbitrary Windows applications then it isn't Windows and shouldn't be called Windows. Call it something else because that's what it is. OSX and iOS share some underpinnings but at least Apple wasn't stupid enough to pretend they are the same thing.
Surfaces ship with Office pre-installed.
Swell - because that's the only app anyone ever actually needs. [/sarcasm]
The problem has become so severe that nothing short of an Edward Snowden-style leak may be needed to increase transparency at the DHS.
Such a leak is just as likely to have exactly the opposite effect. The Snowden leak hasn't exactly made the NSA any more forthcoming regarding their activities. No, the ONLY thing that is going to force DHS to be more transparent in the long run is a motivated Congress. Oversight of the executive branch is after all their job. But since the Dems and Reps are so busy trying to grab power they can't be bothered. The judiciary is no help since they have their head stuck in the sand over standing that they are worse than useless. So the executive branch can do whatever the hell they like without consequence until at least one of the other branches of government starts doing their damn job. All a leak is likely to do is show them what they need to do the be even less transparent than they already are.
The point the poster made, which I think is legitimate, is that even a very small earthquake could probably be catastrophic for a collider's integrity and alignment.
That's an engineering issue that would exist no matter where you built the accelerator. You think there aren't fault lines near the LHC? Fermilab's Tevatron is within the New Madrid seismic zone. There basically is no place on earth that doesn't get earthquakes from time to time. You have to engineer the device with this in mind.
Even assuming China has the technical expertise to create that custom component
China almost certainly has a labor force can make the gear or can hire people who can if there are specific skills needed.
does it pass even casual scrutiny to think that China can make a collider of twice the size at one-third the cost?
No. I'm a cost accountant and I can assure you that China will not enjoy any meaningful cost advantages on a project like this. China might have a minor cost advantage due to cheap labor on the digging portion of the project but it wouldn't be hugely cheaper. The biggest costs will be the gear that goes into the accelerator and China enjoys no meaningful cost advantage there. It's all custom electronics and other stuff which is simply very expensive no matter who does it.
It's a way to make the display appear 3D.
That's what it does but not why you would want it. Like others here I'm failing to see any utility for this "feature". It's sort of cool as a technology demo but I just can't see any practical use for this. It does sound like a great way to reduce battery life, slow the interface, and create unnecessary bugs however. Possibly with a motion sickness chaser for some folks!
That works really well on a 1400 mile (one way) road trip.
So does renting a truck if you really need space.
And since there are many places where starving to death is a significant concern people should just stop whining about cancer and diabetes.
Right because that is really similar to whining about the cost of Saturday processing of Netflix DVDs. [/sarcasm]
Which (gasp) you don't need to do if you have, say......a minivan.
Which (gasp) didn't exist when I was a child and yet somehow we managed without. The first vehicles recognizable as a modern minivan came on the market in 1984 and I was close to driving age by then. Prior to that you either had a full sized econoline van, a VW mini-bus, a station wagon or a second car. Worked out just fine. Plus since we didn't actually need the extra seating of a minivan 99% of the time we didn't have to waste fuel driving around a lot of extra unused vehicle all the time. We owned an econoline van when I was really little for a while (didn't need the space though which is why we got rid of it) and then we owned a series of coupes and sedans. Never was a problem getting all the people wherever we needed to go. I rode from the Great Lakes down to Florida several times in the back of a VW Scirocco.
And it's still odd that you chuckle at people saying they need a van immediately after laying out reasons why some people need a pickup instead of an SUV.
I said most people who buy pickups do not actually need a pickup. An SUV or a minivan or a station wagon would suit their needs fine. A pickup is a work vehicle. If you don't haul messy stuff that would trash an interior then you don't need a pickup. You may want a pickup but you don't need it.
A minivan is a convenience for hauling a family, not a necessity. Nothing wrong with buying a minivan since they are hugely practical but most of the people who claim they "need" a minivan are incorrect. I think minivans make a lot of sense even for many people without kids but station wagons or SUVs can accomplish most of the same things just fine. Both my parents still own minivans despite me and my sister having been out of the house for several decades now. But they are a luxury, not a necessity for most people who have them.
I wouldn't live in a place with inadequate bandwidth for a simple video stream.
I think that is the very definition of a First World Problem.
For something that is after all, only data? Why would anybody want to wait for a day or two for a piece of plastic when they can access the data instantly online?
Because some things aren't available online (legally).
Because you don't have enough bandwidth to get it online.
Because you lack the equipment to stream movies to your TV
Because some DVDs have features not available to streaming versions.
Because you may not have an internet connection at point of viewing
Because Netflix's streaming catalog has more holes than shotgunned swiss cheese.
They may not apply to you but there are reasons why someone might prefer a DVD in some cases.
So slashdot has officially just become a general complaint department then?
You must be new here...
I'd like to see 30+ mpg in a minivan myself.
Agreed. I see no reason why this should not be possible in a minivan at least on the highway.
I have to disagree concerning the other points. My minivans have all handled extremely well, with much better footing (being lower to the ground) than any truck I've driven.
The trucks I currently own handle better than any minivan I've driven, not that that is a high bar to cross. Both my parents still own minivans (both Chrysler products) and I drive them now and again and they both handle like crap despite being well maintained. We're talking serious bodyroll and scary cornering. I'm not expecting a sports car but there is definite room for improvement. If you are comparing against some of the larger trucks then you have a point - they have terrible handling due to their use of leaf springs and other suspension technology just this side of wagon wheels. A truck does not have to be particularly low to the ground to handle well so long as the suspension is set up properly. I've had a Honda Ridgeline that handles better than any minivan you can point out except *maybe* the Mazda. Furthermore being low to the ground is a real problem for some of the things I use my trucks for like plowing. I would be unable to get out of my (steep) driveway in the winter using a minivan, especially after a hard snow.
Minivan styling? Whatever. It's a box with a compact drivetrain to maximize interior room. You want swoopy style, it'll hurt the very thing you want the minivan for.
Styling matters. A box can still be an attractive box. You may not care but most people do. Some pickups and SUVs manage to be at least modestly decent looking whereas I think pretty much every minivan looks like crap. They are either shaped like a doorstop or an ugly station wagon stretched vertically.
Yes. There's also the matter of the labor unions and the screwed up politics of both Detroit and the state.
Neither of which are the problem you think they are. Michigan is now a Right To Work state. Whatever your feelings regarding that politically, it is clear evidence that unions are not the power they once were in Michigan. Both legislative houses and the governor are Republican at the moment and (like him or hate him) governor Rick Snyder (former CEO of Gateway Computer BTW) has been pretty business friendly. Frankly I don't run into anyone on a regular basis that is a member of any union.
Furthermore the economic problems in Michigan have cut a lot of the political BS away. Michigan is very actively courting business including a lot of battery business. A lot of business taxes have been eliminated in the last few years. Detroit City is under the control of an emergency manager. The politics there don't really interfere with anyone who is actually bringing money and business to the city. The politics in Michigan are no more screwed up than in any number of other states I could mention, including California. Virtually all the problems in Michigan are simply long term economic trends relating to the state's dependence on the auto industry.
I think it'd be far cheaper to move whatever fragment of that workforce which is still "capable" out of Michigan to California or Texas than it would be to build anything there.
You would be very wrong to believe that. What you are saying is as absurd as saying it would be cheaper to move the workforce for IT out of Silicon Valley. You clearly have no idea what life is actually like in Michigan.
An SUV plus a utility trailer does fill the role of a pickup truck.
It's not the same thing. By your logic a sedan + a utility trailer = a pickup or an electric vehicle + a towed generator = a hybrid. It's a fine solution but its not a perfect substitute. There are plenty of times when a trailer is WAY more trouble than it is worth. I can (and have) stopped by the landscaping yard on my way home when my wife called needing some dirt or stone for the garden. Just had them dump it in the bed of my pickup with a front end loader. No trailer or extra planning necessary since I don't haul my trailer everywhere I go. I also cannot tow a trailer large enough to justify a fifth wheel with any SUV. I also occasionally take my pickup places with stuff in the bed where I wouldn't dream of towing a trailer. Nothing wrong with buying an SUV + a trailer but if you do that then you are confirming what I said which is that you don't actually need a pickup if an SUV can do the jobs you need done. Most people who buy pickups don't actually need one.
The cost of a minivan plus a pickup plus the fuel to commute in the pickup is greater than the cost of an SUV plus a small sedan plus the fuel to commute in the sedan.
The comparison is for 3 cars versus 2 cars per the original post. There is NO way that you will recoup the cost of a third vehicle in fuel. Even if it is a $2000 beater you'll spend more on maintenance than you will recoup in fuel for a third vehicle. Plus they have pickups now that get good fuel economy. There is the Ram 1500 Ecodiesel and next year there will be some 4 cylinder diesel options in light pickups. It's not hard to find a gas powered pickup that gets 20-25mpg combined these days. Even with a Prius you aren't going to recoup *that* much money in gas.