So, when I have to quickly brake (to avoid things in front of me) and the cyclist who thought it was cool to be tailgating me slams in the back of my car? That has happened to me TWICE, both times they grabbed their bikes and ran, leaving me with the insurance costs of fixing up the damage to my paintwork..
How about the cyclists weaving and cutting through the traffic, making cars emergency stop because they decide its ok to cut around the front of you as they can go faster than the heavy traffic by doing it?
And the one I really love, the cyclists who blaze straight through red lights and pedestrians crossing because they are somehow more holy that all other road users? I have seen at least one nasty accident between cyclists and crossing pedestrian..
The fact is that ALL road users have to follow the rules, however many cyclists want and in fact demand special treatment.
Bring on the equiality I say - time to register those bikes, have manditory fitness checks for they safety, and test/license to riders for the road? Then there is the issue of road taxes, etc - time they started paying their share? Damn those two way streets, cyclists are special and shouldnt have to do THOSE things, right?
Start quoting technical road laws at people to excuse your situation, and you better be damn ready to follow them yourself.
Everything you talked about is already illegal. And dangerous for the cyclist to boot!
There's nothing about bicycles that makes cyclists act with this "holier than all other road users".... you see the same attitudes in car drivers, motorcycle riders, and pedestrians. That's right: the cyclist that runs a red light has the same attitude problems as the driver that cuts you off. Stop this rant at cyclists: it's quite misdirected, really.
Now... about those "equality" measures. The compact car weighs around, say, 3000 lbs. At 40 mph, it has about 218 kJ of kinetic energy behind it. A cyclist + bike weighs, say, 200 lbs. At 20 mph, there's a whopping 3.6 kJ of kinetic energy. That's 1/60th the energy.
There's a reason we require driver's licenses. A stupid cyclist is (mostly) a danger only to himself. A stupid motorist is a danger to everyone around them.
No... equality means enforcement of the rules. Yes, cyclists blow red lights and go the wrong way down one-way streets. Ticket them, just as you would a car doing the same thing. By the way... next time you're driving, pay attention to just how many traffic infractions happen around you (including yourself). Most likely, you've become quite desensitized to the stupid little things that all the other cars do.
And, just FYI... most cyclist already pay their fair share of road taxes. Or did you think cyclists never own cars or pay income/property taxes? And what's a fair share? What wear does a bicycle do to the road? What percentage of the construction funds went into the (probably too narrow to be safe, anyway) bicycle lane?
Even better: the question you really want to answer is "If I replace a trip in a car with a bike ride instead, does my quality of life go up or down?"
Unfortunately, not everything in that question can be answered objectively. Your suggestion comes a bit closer (when I commute on my bike, the ride takes a while longer, but goes for slightly less distance) on the objective part.
But then things get quite subjective. How do you even compare accidents, for example? Well, deaths draw a nice, clean, objective line... but less serious injuries are harder to pin down. By far, the most common cycling injury is a broken collarbone. In car crashes, it seems to neck and head injuries. I'd rather be injured in a cycling crash than a car crash, that's for sure.
I'm also willing to accept a small increase in my accident risk if it means a dramatic increase in my overall health. I've seen a difference in my own health since I started getting into cycling a few years ago -- it's totally worth it to me.
It's time you learn how insurance works, it seems. Insurance is a zero sum game: someone, somewhere will have to pay -- you included.
1) You will pay a higher premium simply for owning said car, whether or not any accident takes place. 2) Premiums will be higher across the board to offset the additional expense of these accidents.
So, this particular hypothetical accident may not result in your premiums being adjusted directly, but remember that your premiums include the cost to repair your accident, and everyone else's accidents, too.
You're the type of person who thinks Obamacare is going to make medical costs magically go down. Insurance is designed to make the impact to few unfortunate souls more bearable, at a cost to everyone else. And since there's an insurance company in the middle taking out profit, society as a whole pays more. (Don't get me wrong... Obamacare does do a few things to lower costs, but requiring everybody to carry insurance is completely wrong from an economic perspective, especially since lifetime limits, preexisting conditions, etc. are removed from the equation.)
Of course this is an attempt to get people to buy Oracle. And not just any people: the US government. And not just any part of the government, the DoD in particular.
For example... Lots of defense systems run on Solaris. Those servers are EXPENSIVE. But now there's a massive push to virtualize everything onto cheep x86 hardware and run Linux. Oracle Database is getting similarly attacked.
Take this as evidence that sequestration hit some defense budgets pretty hard -- enough that they're looking for reasonably-priced solutions and getting pushback from big vendors shouting "TCO! Surely we're actually cheaper!"
And documentation for closed-source commercial software is better, somehow?
I'm working with a handful of closed-source products right now. None of them have any worthwhile documentation beyond a basic API description. The vendor barely supports us. At least with open-source I can see what the software does if all else fails, and there's usually a community to offer support regardless of what the project itself offers.
Science Fiction is a sub-genre of Speculative Fiction. The idea is to twist a few things from reality and then make a story about it. With SciFi, those twists are usually related to technology or science (speculating on what might happen in the future at technology develops, for example). Fantasy is another sub-genre, where the twists are more supernatural. Of course, I'm making broad generalizations here, but the concept should be about right. All fiction is speculative to some extent, of course, but Speculative Fiction tends to alter something rather fundamental about reality.
So, ask yourself... what exactly did Gravity speculate about with science or technology? "What if we hadn't shut down the Shuttle program" might work, but hardly seems to be enough to separate it into Science Fiction rather than just Fiction.
As an author establishes a new reality, the audience must suspend their disbelief to accept it. I have a theory that the closer the new reality matches real life experience, the less willing the audience needs to be (and the less willing they will be). Thus, Gravity needs to be much more faithful to science than, say Star Wars.
1) It's a feel-good. I'll admit it -- you don't strictly need that line. 2) It gives an indication of progress. I can see that things are progressing. I can see what files are taking forever (rare but informative). I can tell where in the build process things are (and therefore how much time is left.) 3) I can see what is being recompiled and gain a better understanding of the build dependencies.
And yes, I do "read" the output of the build process. Seeing build warnings and errors at a glance is essential. A good IDE is even better, of course (it basically parses out the build garbage for you), but that's not always available.
Clean build output is like syntax highlighting -- not strictly necessary to do your job, but it makes finding and fixing errors much easier, in my opinion.
You've never done a parallel build on a large project, have you? The output gets disgustingly obnoxious (the include path being the worst offender). You can't see what the compiler is doing, and that's the point.
Instead, it's better to just print a simple line like "Compiling File1.c" -- that's 90% of what you want to know anyway. If something goes wrong, use the -n option to see the compile line. The --trace option is even better.
A common workaround up to this point was to conditionally define a variable like QUIET=@, and then use that at the start of any actions ($(QUIET) $(CC)...). Redefining QUIET to empty lets you see the line. I prefer the -n option, but it might not be as portable.
In reality, you only care about the compile options when debugging the build process itself. But in normal usage, get rid of the internals and just let me see the results of the compilation.
You forgot a big one (that nobody seems to talk about):
D) Lots of more serious offenders are actually caught by routine traffic stops. Timothy McVeigh comes to mind as a famous example. Get the police out in public, make them visible, and interacting with a random smattering of the population and they're bound to come across something interesting eventually.
I can't tell if this calls for a "whoosh" or a history lesson.
No, I'm not getting them confused. It's unfortunate that MB and family got an overloaded definition, but it's something that's been with us for a long time. MiB is a relatively recent invention that tries to resolve this. Nobody uses it. Except a few pendants here and there like you.
The fact remains that many people are surprised that the hard drive industry uses a different unit (sometimes even mixing units, as was the case with the 1.44" floppy) than just about everybody else (including operating systems). People have been confused many times. Hence the fine print.
If I say 12 pack of Awesome Brand beer for $10, and when you get it home and open it up there's only 6 beers in there, then you would be rightfully pissed. The fine print can't say "by 12 we mean 6". Fine print can't outright contradict.
I can't help but think of the fine print on hard drives: "1 GB = 1000 MB."
What makes this different is the 10 story rocket. The LEM was 18 ft tall. The Sky Crane was probably about the same, if not smaller. The scale here makes your "toys" kinda pathetic... it's clearly not the same by any means.
This is just a baby step to doing the whole thing from orbit, starting from hypersonic velocities (although I think a heat shield and parachutes do a significant amount of work before the rockets kick in).
This project is ramping up to be something really impressive.
He already said he's not going to do this one... yet. He's giving the world a chance to chime in first. Then, in a couple years, if someone else hasn't picked up the ball, he says he'll pursue it himself.
Given Musk's history, I'm going to think of this project as vaporware that has a decent chance of condensing into a liquid someday.
I'm 6' even. It sticks out of my pockets, too, but that's my point exactly.
You're not going to be sitting down with this in your pockets. But the 7" form factor means you have a place to put it when the need arises, unlike a 10" tablet.
BTW... I think Apple missed this key feature with their iPad Mini. It's over a half inch wider than the Nexus 7, making it that much harder to pocket. Especially with any sort of case.
My Nexus 7 fits perfectly fine in my pockets, thank you. Even with a case.
Not that I'm going to roam around town 24x7 that way, of course. But I can slip it into my back pocket when I need to chase after my toddler. It also fits into my suit coat pocket -- a bit heavy, of course, but convenient for business purposes.
7" tablets are "pocket-able," but not "pocket-sized." And that's perfect for me.
If by "electronics" you mean "a couple resistors"... you're basically correct. Apple creates a voltage divider on the data lines to tell the device what the charger is capable of. Credit where credit is due to MintyBoost.
The original USB spec allowed for 100 mA power with a negotiated increase to 500 mA over the data connection. Nobody bothered to implement this, and most everything will just supply 500 mA regardless.
Apple decided 500 mA wasn't enough, and created their own proprietary (albeit simplistic) system for communicating the power capability (which includes upping the voltage in the newest chargers, I think).
The rest of the industry simplified things even more by just shorting the data lines. USB 3.0 officially increases the power capabilities.
End result: original poster to the thread is PROVABLY WRONG. Apple chargers are very much proprietary, from the wall wart all the way to the device connector.
Slashdot Mirror
So, when I have to quickly brake (to avoid things in front of me) and the cyclist who thought it was cool to be tailgating me slams in the back of my car?
That has happened to me TWICE, both times they grabbed their bikes and ran, leaving me with the insurance costs of fixing up the damage to my paintwork..
How about the cyclists weaving and cutting through the traffic, making cars emergency stop because they decide its ok to cut around the front of you as they
can go faster than the heavy traffic by doing it?
And the one I really love, the cyclists who blaze straight through red lights and pedestrians crossing because they are somehow more holy that all other road
users? I have seen at least one nasty accident between cyclists and crossing pedestrian..
The fact is that ALL road users have to follow the rules, however many cyclists want and in fact demand special treatment.
Bring on the equiality I say - time to register those bikes, have manditory fitness checks for they safety, and test/license to riders for the road?
Then there is the issue of road taxes, etc - time they started paying their share?
Damn those two way streets, cyclists are special and shouldnt have to do THOSE things, right?
Start quoting technical road laws at people to excuse your situation, and you better be damn ready to follow them yourself.
Everything you talked about is already illegal. And dangerous for the cyclist to boot!
There's nothing about bicycles that makes cyclists act with this "holier than all other road users" .... you see the same attitudes in car drivers, motorcycle riders, and pedestrians. That's right: the cyclist that runs a red light has the same attitude problems as the driver that cuts you off. Stop this rant at cyclists: it's quite misdirected, really.
Now ... about those "equality" measures. The compact car weighs around, say, 3000 lbs. At 40 mph, it has about 218 kJ of kinetic energy behind it. A cyclist + bike weighs, say, 200 lbs. At 20 mph, there's a whopping 3.6 kJ of kinetic energy. That's 1/60th the energy.
There's a reason we require driver's licenses. A stupid cyclist is (mostly) a danger only to himself. A stupid motorist is a danger to everyone around them.
No ... equality means enforcement of the rules. Yes, cyclists blow red lights and go the wrong way down one-way streets. Ticket them, just as you would a car doing the same thing. By the way ... next time you're driving, pay attention to just how many traffic infractions happen around you (including yourself). Most likely, you've become quite desensitized to the stupid little things that all the other cars do.
And, just FYI ... most cyclist already pay their fair share of road taxes. Or did you think cyclists never own cars or pay income/property taxes? And what's a fair share? What wear does a bicycle do to the road? What percentage of the construction funds went into the (probably too narrow to be safe, anyway) bicycle lane?
Even better: the question you really want to answer is "If I replace a trip in a car with a bike ride instead, does my quality of life go up or down?"
Unfortunately, not everything in that question can be answered objectively. Your suggestion comes a bit closer (when I commute on my bike, the ride takes a while longer, but goes for slightly less distance) on the objective part.
But then things get quite subjective. How do you even compare accidents, for example? Well, deaths draw a nice, clean, objective line ... but less serious injuries are harder to pin down. By far, the most common cycling injury is a broken collarbone. In car crashes, it seems to neck and head injuries. I'd rather be injured in a cycling crash than a car crash, that's for sure.
I'm also willing to accept a small increase in my accident risk if it means a dramatic increase in my overall health. I've seen a difference in my own health since I started getting into cycling a few years ago -- it's totally worth it to me.
That's why I run /.*nix/ on my workstations.
It's time you learn how insurance works, it seems. Insurance is a zero sum game: someone, somewhere will have to pay -- you included.
1) You will pay a higher premium simply for owning said car, whether or not any accident takes place.
2) Premiums will be higher across the board to offset the additional expense of these accidents.
So, this particular hypothetical accident may not result in your premiums being adjusted directly, but remember that your premiums include the cost to repair your accident, and everyone else's accidents, too.
You're the type of person who thinks Obamacare is going to make medical costs magically go down. Insurance is designed to make the impact to few unfortunate souls more bearable, at a cost to everyone else. And since there's an insurance company in the middle taking out profit, society as a whole pays more. (Don't get me wrong ... Obamacare does do a few things to lower costs, but requiring everybody to carry insurance is completely wrong from an economic perspective, especially since lifetime limits, preexisting conditions, etc. are removed from the equation.)
Of course this is an attempt to get people to buy Oracle. And not just any people: the US government. And not just any part of the government, the DoD in particular.
For example ... Lots of defense systems run on Solaris. Those servers are EXPENSIVE. But now there's a massive push to virtualize everything onto cheep x86 hardware and run Linux. Oracle Database is getting similarly attacked.
Take this as evidence that sequestration hit some defense budgets pretty hard -- enough that they're looking for reasonably-priced solutions and getting pushback from big vendors shouting "TCO! Surely we're actually cheaper!"
And documentation for closed-source commercial software is better, somehow?
I'm working with a handful of closed-source products right now. None of them have any worthwhile documentation beyond a basic API description. The vendor barely supports us. At least with open-source I can see what the software does if all else fails, and there's usually a community to offer support regardless of what the project itself offers.
Science Fiction is a sub-genre of Speculative Fiction. The idea is to twist a few things from reality and then make a story about it. With SciFi, those twists are usually related to technology or science (speculating on what might happen in the future at technology develops, for example). Fantasy is another sub-genre, where the twists are more supernatural. Of course, I'm making broad generalizations here, but the concept should be about right. All fiction is speculative to some extent, of course, but Speculative Fiction tends to alter something rather fundamental about reality.
So, ask yourself ... what exactly did Gravity speculate about with science or technology? "What if we hadn't shut down the Shuttle program" might work, but hardly seems to be enough to separate it into Science Fiction rather than just Fiction.
As an author establishes a new reality, the audience must suspend their disbelief to accept it. I have a theory that the closer the new reality matches real life experience, the less willing the audience needs to be (and the less willing they will be). Thus, Gravity needs to be much more faithful to science than, say Star Wars.
xkcd 404
Thanks to --trace ... we both get our way.
I like your thinking ... the GPL needs a voodoo doll sharing clause. There's more than one build system that deserved it.
Three reasons:
1) It's a feel-good. I'll admit it -- you don't strictly need that line.
2) It gives an indication of progress. I can see that things are progressing. I can see what files are taking forever (rare but informative). I can tell where in the build process things are (and therefore how much time is left.)
3) I can see what is being recompiled and gain a better understanding of the build dependencies.
And yes, I do "read" the output of the build process. Seeing build warnings and errors at a glance is essential. A good IDE is even better, of course (it basically parses out the build garbage for you), but that's not always available.
Clean build output is like syntax highlighting -- not strictly necessary to do your job, but it makes finding and fixing errors much easier, in my opinion.
I think we've all arrived at a very special place. Spiritually, ecumenically, grammatically.
-- Jack Sparrow
At which point you type 'make --trace' and figure things out. But in the general case, it is completely pointless.
You've never done a parallel build on a large project, have you? The output gets disgustingly obnoxious (the include path being the worst offender). You can't see what the compiler is doing, and that's the point.
Instead, it's better to just print a simple line like "Compiling File1.c" -- that's 90% of what you want to know anyway. If something goes wrong, use the -n option to see the compile line. The --trace option is even better.
A common workaround up to this point was to conditionally define a variable like QUIET=@, and then use that at the start of any actions ($(QUIET) $(CC) ...). Redefining QUIET to empty lets you see the line. I prefer the -n option, but it might not be as portable.
In reality, you only care about the compile options when debugging the build process itself. But in normal usage, get rid of the internals and just let me see the results of the compilation.
http://www.dailydot.com/business/silk-road-dread-pirate-roberts-interview/
That's exactly what seems to have happened.
It means the same thing, for all intensive purposes.
You forgot a big one (that nobody seems to talk about):
D) Lots of more serious offenders are actually caught by routine traffic stops. Timothy McVeigh comes to mind as a famous example. Get the police out in public, make them visible, and interacting with a random smattering of the population and they're bound to come across something interesting eventually.
"License and registration, please?"
I can't tell if this calls for a "whoosh" or a history lesson.
No, I'm not getting them confused. It's unfortunate that MB and family got an overloaded definition, but it's something that's been with us for a long time. MiB is a relatively recent invention that tries to resolve this. Nobody uses it. Except a few pendants here and there like you.
The fact remains that many people are surprised that the hard drive industry uses a different unit (sometimes even mixing units, as was the case with the 1.44" floppy) than just about everybody else (including operating systems). People have been confused many times. Hence the fine print.
If I say 12 pack of Awesome Brand beer for $10, and when you get it home and open it up there's only 6 beers in there, then you would be rightfully pissed. The fine print can't say "by 12 we mean 6". Fine print can't outright contradict.
I can't help but think of the fine print on hard drives: "1 GB = 1000 MB."
He already got egg on his face. Having a cow is perfectly permissible now.
What makes this different is the 10 story rocket. The LEM was 18 ft tall. The Sky Crane was probably about the same, if not smaller. The scale here makes your "toys" kinda pathetic ... it's clearly not the same by any means.
This is just a baby step to doing the whole thing from orbit, starting from hypersonic velocities (although I think a heat shield and parachutes do a significant amount of work before the rockets kick in).
This project is ramping up to be something really impressive.
He already said he's not going to do this one ... yet. He's giving the world a chance to chime in first. Then, in a couple years, if someone else hasn't picked up the ball, he says he'll pursue it himself.
Given Musk's history, I'm going to think of this project as vaporware that has a decent chance of condensing into a liquid someday.
I'm 6' even. It sticks out of my pockets, too, but that's my point exactly.
You're not going to be sitting down with this in your pockets. But the 7" form factor means you have a place to put it when the need arises, unlike a 10" tablet.
BTW ... I think Apple missed this key feature with their iPad Mini. It's over a half inch wider than the Nexus 7, making it that much harder to pocket. Especially with any sort of case.
My Nexus 7 fits perfectly fine in my pockets, thank you. Even with a case.
Not that I'm going to roam around town 24x7 that way, of course. But I can slip it into my back pocket when I need to chase after my toddler. It also fits into my suit coat pocket -- a bit heavy, of course, but convenient for business purposes.
7" tablets are "pocket-able," but not "pocket-sized." And that's perfect for me.
If by "electronics" you mean "a couple resistors" ... you're basically correct. Apple creates a voltage divider on the data lines to tell the device what the charger is capable of. Credit where credit is due to MintyBoost.
The original USB spec allowed for 100 mA power with a negotiated increase to 500 mA over the data connection. Nobody bothered to implement this, and most everything will just supply 500 mA regardless.
Apple decided 500 mA wasn't enough, and created their own proprietary (albeit simplistic) system for communicating the power capability (which includes upping the voltage in the newest chargers, I think).
The rest of the industry simplified things even more by just shorting the data lines. USB 3.0 officially increases the power capabilities.
End result: original poster to the thread is PROVABLY WRONG. Apple chargers are very much proprietary, from the wall wart all the way to the device connector.
You're right, of course. I was fooled by the alphabet ... all the other 4-letter "union" words came from a Cyrillic alphabet.
Now I know.