Biosphere 2 has, IIRC, fucked up a rather basic string: that concrete interacts with atmosphere and can be a carbon and oxygen sink. So that was fucked up just here, on Earth. A lesser fuckup can doom a Mars colony, but then, the biggest thing they need is really scale and mass delivered. Large systems take longer to fail, and they may have time to fix them up before they run away catastrophically. Biosphere 2 was too small - even the concrete fuckup would be less of an issue if it was a bigger building with more gas and plant volume.
To clarify: the keyboard in the picture is one of the two keyboards with the same style. I have the larger variant, not pictured, that has a numeric keypad and function keys.
One of my favorite keyboards is the one from ABC 802. It doesn't have enough keys for use today, but for its intended uses it was perfect. The grey plate that surrounds the keys is 5mm solid aluminum plate. The included wrist rest is some sort of a wood-based composite, nicely insulating the carpal tunnel from the aluminum heatsink.
I still keep the little bugger in a closet and fire it up every now and then. And to think I've had email running on it, written in BASIC, running over serial TCP/IP at 19,200 bps. Yep, everything was in BASIC, the TCP/IP stack included. Obviousl, being busy with all that, my high school performance was otherwise "poor".
Their BASIC was to die for, the fastest BASIC I've ever used on a Z80 machine.
I'd have hoped that most "appliances" are just silly to make and use these days, what with virtualization etc. You should be buying a vm image, not a piece of hardware.
Being half-blind, a.k.a. blind in one eye, shouldn't be a problem. I know that it's illegal to drive half-blind in some European countries, but that is IMHO just one of the many overreaching, stupid regulations. One thing I like about the U.S. is that being half-blind is not a problem here and you can certainly legally drive a car that way. Binocular vision isn't really necessary for driving a street car.
We definitely have the technology to do that, but you need a lot of capital to make it. Think of a scale of endeavor somewhere between Tesla and Space X. When you look at all the flying cars so far, they're all designed like if they were kit planes. That kind of a design doesn't work for cars, and even for planes it's not what you need for production - it's very inefficient. For a decently performing plane-car, we're likely talking of STOVL or somesuch, and it'd definitely need a completely custom drivetrain - as in you need to design everything, including the engine, you can't just buy a Rotax and call it a day. For one thing, the drivetrain would likely have to be structural, like on modern F1 cars. For another, you need to design the maintainability and diagnostics from the get-go. None of this is cheap. I'd fully expect a decent road-worthy, well-performing flying car to weigh around 2.5 tons with a couple of passengers, and it wouldn't exactly be a gas sipper during the typical short commute where the vertical thrust is applied for a large fraction of it.
Composites don't necessarily behave that way. You could even have a multi-layer composite, if needed - probably a composite where the layer thickness grows as you go from top to bottom, and layers alternate between sapphire and Gorilla Glass, with the bottom-most layer being the thickest and made of Gorilla Glass.
They won't do that, because there's really no other customer for their rides to space. They themselves ride to space only because there's the ISS, and the whole thing starts making very little sense without U.S. involvement. I very much doubt they'd want to keep going to ISS if they'd outright refuse to offer the service to U.S. astronauts.
The lamination is not done on a laminator you might find in your local copy store. The pieces laminated together are multiple layers of plastic stock. No paper, no stand-alone photos. Delamination is not really possible without destroying the ID. What you call "hard plastic" has been laminated from multiple layers of stock that doesn't seem to be anything special. Many European IDs were more spoof-proof a dozen years ago, though.
"giving our astronauts rides" You mean they won't take everyone else's money anymore? Seriously? Because they are no charitable operation, you know, they're in launch business, and they charge appropriately. They don't give any astronauts jack shit. They are a commercial man-rated launch provider.
The ULA trolls are easy to spot: they constantly repeat the tired and old "without the safety stuff" mantra. The only safety that's gonna be lost is your employment.
You conflate the legality of an action with prosecutorial discretion. The bank's managers are likely to be too high on the social ladder for the prosecuting attorney to risk their wrath, and the wrath of their possibly highly-placed "friends". If the case somehow got to court, though, the jury would have no choice in the matter but to find the teenager guilty (unless they decided to act sane and not follow the instruction of the judge). Heck, if the bankers had a beef with the kids' family somehow, you can bet that the kid would be found guilty.
It is legal for a minor to be naked and have another minor see them (or see themselves)
Don't give the lawmakers any ideas, now. There's plenty of conservative middle-aged daddies out there who'd love to write such laws and loudly proclaim their goodness "for the children".
It is legal for a minor to have sex with another minor (assuming consent, etc.)
It's not. The concept of consent doesn't apply to minors. But of course they get into trouble at school if they don't behave properly. And they are forced to "sign" various school codes of conduct etc. It's basically a mess created by people who have no knowledge of law, and whose "morality" is derived from wishing really, really badly that their "innocent" teenage daughter isn't seen by anyone else. Those are the people that write our laws, mostly. I think that people who have kids shouldn't be writing any laws that affect kids in any shape or form, for they demonstrably can't think straight.
The worst laws out there specifically disclaim the necessity of an intent. U.S. child pornography and drug laws are such laws. Possession is sufficient, you don't need any intent, heck, you could be braindead for all the law cares about you.
It not only "should" be prosecuted that way, it most certainly is prosecuted that way, and it should remain so until it finally gets through the thick skulls of the voters and their elected lawmakers that those laws actually hurt their kids - and hurt them badly, ruining their kids' futures. Only when a sufficient number of teenagers go to prison and have their futures ruined by such indiscriminate "but think of the children" laws, will there be sufficient outrage to wipe such laws for ever after.
The *only* U.S. laws that I know of that protect data itself are those that cover espionage, legally protected information (HIPAA, FERPA, etc.), access to computers and computer networks, trade secrets and copyright. Outside of those laws the concept of "stolen information" exists only in your own mind, but not in the legal vocabulary. So, in this case, the only law that applies without a doubt is copyright, and perhaps also the laws against unauthorized access to computers. As you can see, the second law is completely unnecessary, since historically the copyright infringement damages make all other laws look outright silly. A manslaughter can be less financially devastating than copyright infringement.
You're looking at this the wrong way. It's all the married, conservative 40+ year old "dads" that suck up public outrage and write those laws. The well-being of the kids never enters the picture. They know better. For the children, you know. It's repugnant:(
Slashdot Mirror
Biosphere 2 has, IIRC, fucked up a rather basic string: that concrete interacts with atmosphere and can be a carbon and oxygen sink. So that was fucked up just here, on Earth. A lesser fuckup can doom a Mars colony, but then, the biggest thing they need is really scale and mass delivered. Large systems take longer to fail, and they may have time to fix them up before they run away catastrophically. Biosphere 2 was too small - even the concrete fuckup would be less of an issue if it was a bigger building with more gas and plant volume.
Python can actually be parallelized for certain tasks. And it can be done without even touching the GIL, and without affecting the performance of "regular" code. And it can really perform very, very well.
Template functionality doesn't set aside any type restrictions. After doing template type deductions and substitutions, the code must typecheck.
To clarify: the keyboard in the picture is one of the two keyboards with the same style. I have the larger variant, not pictured, that has a numeric keypad and function keys.
One of my favorite keyboards is the one from ABC 802. It doesn't have enough keys for use today, but for its intended uses it was perfect. The grey plate that surrounds the keys is 5mm solid aluminum plate. The included wrist rest is some sort of a wood-based composite, nicely insulating the carpal tunnel from the aluminum heatsink.
I still keep the little bugger in a closet and fire it up every now and then. And to think I've had email running on it, written in BASIC, running over serial TCP/IP at 19,200 bps. Yep, everything was in BASIC, the TCP/IP stack included. Obviousl, being busy with all that, my high school performance was otherwise "poor".
Their BASIC was to die for, the fastest BASIC I've ever used on a Z80 machine.
No, you're not the only one. SK-8115 here. Perfect.
BBB is a scam. It's a private corporation that pretends to be something more. They are beyond useless.
I'd have hoped that most "appliances" are just silly to make and use these days, what with virtualization etc. You should be buying a vm image, not a piece of hardware.
Being half-blind, a.k.a. blind in one eye, shouldn't be a problem. I know that it's illegal to drive half-blind in some European countries, but that is IMHO just one of the many overreaching, stupid regulations. One thing I like about the U.S. is that being half-blind is not a problem here and you can certainly legally drive a car that way. Binocular vision isn't really necessary for driving a street car.
We definitely have the technology to do that, but you need a lot of capital to make it. Think of a scale of endeavor somewhere between Tesla and Space X. When you look at all the flying cars so far, they're all designed like if they were kit planes. That kind of a design doesn't work for cars, and even for planes it's not what you need for production - it's very inefficient. For a decently performing plane-car, we're likely talking of STOVL or somesuch, and it'd definitely need a completely custom drivetrain - as in you need to design everything, including the engine, you can't just buy a Rotax and call it a day. For one thing, the drivetrain would likely have to be structural, like on modern F1 cars. For another, you need to design the maintainability and diagnostics from the get-go. None of this is cheap. I'd fully expect a decent road-worthy, well-performing flying car to weigh around 2.5 tons with a couple of passengers, and it wouldn't exactly be a gas sipper during the typical short commute where the vertical thrust is applied for a large fraction of it.
Composites don't necessarily behave that way. You could even have a multi-layer composite, if needed - probably a composite where the layer thickness grows as you go from top to bottom, and layers alternate between sapphire and Gorilla Glass, with the bottom-most layer being the thickest and made of Gorilla Glass.
Obvious question: why don't they do a sandwich of sapphire-over-Gorilla-Glass?
They won't do that, because there's really no other customer for their rides to space. They themselves ride to space only because there's the ISS, and the whole thing starts making very little sense without U.S. involvement. I very much doubt they'd want to keep going to ISS if they'd outright refuse to offer the service to U.S. astronauts.
The lamination is not done on a laminator you might find in your local copy store. The pieces laminated together are multiple layers of plastic stock. No paper, no stand-alone photos. Delamination is not really possible without destroying the ID. What you call "hard plastic" has been laminated from multiple layers of stock that doesn't seem to be anything special. Many European IDs were more spoof-proof a dozen years ago, though.
It's in the government's best interests to reduce this dominance of TBC, in fact.
"giving our astronauts rides" You mean they won't take everyone else's money anymore? Seriously? Because they are no charitable operation, you know, they're in launch business, and they charge appropriately. They don't give any astronauts jack shit. They are a commercial man-rated launch provider.
The ULA trolls are easy to spot: they constantly repeat the tired and old "without the safety stuff" mantra. The only safety that's gonna be lost is your employment.
But doesn't prevent use of dangling pointers and unconstructed objects. So, not very much win, I'd say.
You conflate the legality of an action with prosecutorial discretion. The bank's managers are likely to be too high on the social ladder for the prosecuting attorney to risk their wrath, and the wrath of their possibly highly-placed "friends". If the case somehow got to court, though, the jury would have no choice in the matter but to find the teenager guilty (unless they decided to act sane and not follow the instruction of the judge). Heck, if the bankers had a beef with the kids' family somehow, you can bet that the kid would be found guilty.
It's better than that - you were using purely functional programming. Lotus, without macros, is as purely functional as Haskell without monads.
It is legal for a minor to be naked and have another minor see them (or see themselves)
Don't give the lawmakers any ideas, now. There's plenty of conservative middle-aged daddies out there who'd love to write such laws and loudly proclaim their goodness "for the children".
It is legal for a minor to have sex with another minor (assuming consent, etc.)
It's not. The concept of consent doesn't apply to minors. But of course they get into trouble at school if they don't behave properly. And they are forced to "sign" various school codes of conduct etc. It's basically a mess created by people who have no knowledge of law, and whose "morality" is derived from wishing really, really badly that their "innocent" teenage daughter isn't seen by anyone else. Those are the people that write our laws, mostly. I think that people who have kids shouldn't be writing any laws that affect kids in any shape or form, for they demonstrably can't think straight.
The worst laws out there specifically disclaim the necessity of an intent. U.S. child pornography and drug laws are such laws. Possession is sufficient, you don't need any intent, heck, you could be braindead for all the law cares about you.
It not only "should" be prosecuted that way, it most certainly is prosecuted that way, and it should remain so until it finally gets through the thick skulls of the voters and their elected lawmakers that those laws actually hurt their kids - and hurt them badly, ruining their kids' futures. Only when a sufficient number of teenagers go to prison and have their futures ruined by such indiscriminate "but think of the children" laws, will there be sufficient outrage to wipe such laws for ever after.
The *only* U.S. laws that I know of that protect data itself are those that cover espionage, legally protected information (HIPAA, FERPA, etc.), access to computers and computer networks, trade secrets and copyright. Outside of those laws the concept of "stolen information" exists only in your own mind, but not in the legal vocabulary. So, in this case, the only law that applies without a doubt is copyright, and perhaps also the laws against unauthorized access to computers. As you can see, the second law is completely unnecessary, since historically the copyright infringement damages make all other laws look outright silly. A manslaughter can be less financially devastating than copyright infringement.
You're looking at this the wrong way. It's all the married, conservative 40+ year old "dads" that suck up public outrage and write those laws. The well-being of the kids never enters the picture. They know better. For the children, you know. It's repugnant :(