And seriously, they carted him to the ER? It was within golf cart distance? Or was that just an inappropriate choice of words? Maybe the problem isn't limited to the golf crowd at your job...
It's a known turn of phrase at least in American English. 'Hauled off' would have also worked, 'carted off' tends to imply an ambulance to me. IE he was treated as cargo. Then again - being carried off a sporting field after injury seems appropriate:
Decades ago one of my sisters had a lazy eye. She had to wear an eye patch on the good eye for a while, that's all. Simple solution that doesn't interfere much with their daily lives.
Fixes a decent percentage of the population, sure, but what about those for which the eyepatch fails?
Not a golfer, but I remember a few courses dad took me on restricted the carts to paved paths and 'just off it' to park. I assume they didn't want their greens messed up.
Thus why he said that driving through a deactivated school zone slowly is being an 'assbag'. Because he's not only going slow, he's slowing down everybody behind them.
Look, here in the states residential streets are typically already 25mph - the speed limit for most school zones. Most schools only abut against 1-2 higher speed streets. Get the kids over them safely, the rest of their trip is on 25mph residential streets where kids are to be expected.
We just don't feel the need to keep the speed limit lower when kids are unlikely to be present. Thus the systems of lights. Your system of permanent speeds in this situation is fine, and easier for self-driving cars to handle, but that's not the case in most of the USA and Europe.
It normally amounts to political. People drive what they feel is safe, normally speaking.
More in depth reasons vary - impressions of safety*, noise abatement(doesn't work if not followed), the idea that increasing the speed limit will increase speed on the road(it normally doesn't), even revenue generation - the cops get to write 20+ over tickets rather than 10+ over, and the former is a much bigger fine. etc...
*Despite evidence being that speed limits that are too low are almost/more as dangerous as too high, because they tend to increase speed differentials.
FTA - "Despite the awkward encounter, the cyclist didn’t leave with a negative impression of self-driving cars."
Imagine that, somebody driving a fixie who understands testing! That "The two guys inside were laughing and punching stuff into a laptop." means that, yes, they have a sense of humor and the absurd, but are punching stuff into a laptop, presumably to log additional information in for that encounter.
With this incident added to the list, the programmers can now develop a module to handle this behavior appropriately.
I get irked when a problem is encountered in a test and used to imply that the whole idea is stupid. This article isn't too bad, demonstrates WHY they're still doing testing.
I think that it's that he's willing to use himself as a test subject before inflicting it on others, fairly rare today.
Not that I suggest a heart surgeon do a transplant on himself or that a doctor inject himself with insulin if he's not diabetic...
But living in complete darkness for ~5 days can have unexpected developments/difficulties, it's probably best to NOT inflict that on kids until you know what to look for.
Personally, I think that people are incorrect when they think of Marx as an economist. He wasn't. He was more of a socialogist. His economics were a side-note compared to the class struggle portion. It's just that you can't build a utopian social theory, like many philosophers have before, without touching upon economics. He was right that the social structures of the time were unsustainable though.
That's a bit like trying to predict the weather by looking outside right this moment and forecasting it'll be the same tomorrow though. You observe the people, develop a model that attempts to predict their actions, then use the model to attempt to predict future actions, thus allowing you to make accurate forecasts.
Besides that, to misuse Asimov, predicting a human is hard. Predicting a group of humans is substantially easier.
Hell, I saw it coming. Like I said, not an economist and thus I wasn't about to try to peg when it'd happen. For that matter, I didn't even know how bad it was underneath.
My metric was incredibly simple: comparing median salary of home purchasers with median home price. When that started getting out of whack, combined with news like how the average home purchaser was in more debt than ever(student loans), my realization was that the prices were unsustainable.
I ended up buying a $15k house and living through the bursting in it. Then sold it for $15k.
I knew it was in beanie-baby territory when banks were handing out loans because they were counting on things like even if they didn't get ONE payment from the borrower they'd still get their money back in appreciation by the time they repossessed it and sold it. Even as the incomes of those that would like to move into said homes was stagnant.
As for Walmart stocking movies, why? Streaming is where it's all going. I admit there a paucity of 4K content, but I don't care, as that's not my use case. NTSC with a good story/plot is way more entertaining than 8K with a crap story/plot.
And why is there a paucity of streaming? Lack of bandwidth, currently... At least out in the boonies where I live.
For the sake of argument... how would I communicate that point to you if you're wrong, don't know it, think you're right, and are too pigheaded to realize it?
To quote Bill Nye from a creationist debate: "Evidence". His opponent, the creationist, said "Nothing" given the same question. So I'll ask you: What would it take to convince you of the same?
In this case, you'd either need to provide credible sources that show that coal power plant pollution doesn't cause illness, but keep in mind that I've posted scientific studies (scholar.google.com and academic credentials are lovely for accessing studies).
Evidence has been generally lacking in your rebuttals, which at least against me, renders them mostly ineffective. Note how when I do them when it involves a matter of 'fact', I start linking sources. Note how, when you did link sources, I did go and read them.
1. I think you're not going to understand what "for the sake of argument" or "theoretically" are going to mean in this situation and are going to refuse to go along with the thought experiment.
Disproved? Like I've said before, you have a bad rate at predicting my understanding, actions, or thoughts. That's not necessarily a bad thing, you don't really know me and I'm very much non-standard. The best description of my politics I've been labeled with is "practical minarchist".
I'll give you the last word here, sport. You're another of these sad dopes that gets conned by sophistry from much smarter people than yourself...
You do realize that such people are few and far between, right?
Am I perfect? Nothing is... but at least my mistakes and my errors are my own. You're a fucking parrot mouthing talking points. You think you understand what you're saying but you don't. its all just sounds to you.
And we're back to personal insults. Again, that's an indication of you not being able to attack my arguments. Besides, parrets understand more than you think. Note my use of supporting evidence.
So I'm going to ask, who do you think is feeding me these talking points? Why?
Personally, I wonder the same about you, now that you've brought up the idea. Evidence: 1. The mismatch between my points and your responses. I talk about pollution, you bring up global warming. I talk about nuclear plants, you talk about how wind and solar can't replace coal/nuclear. Carbon credits I'll give you, given that it was what the thread was originaly about, and I hadn't gotten around to decrying them yet(see: not writing a book). 2. The disregard for my arguments - instead you double down, still don't provide evidence(I'll admit that I'm often lazy and will just post, but if pressed I start pulling sources). 3. The constant strawmanning and falling back on personal insults. Note how the worst I've said is that 'you're bad at predicting me'.
So, going by the theory that you're working off of talking points provided by a coal power advocate: 1. The talking points are geared towards countering a 'greenie', Not a pseudo-libertarian nuclear power advocate. In short I break the 'script. 2. I break script, you have the choice of doubling down and saying the same thing in a different way hoping that it'll change or I'll start following the script, but I don't. 3. When that doesn't work you fall back on personal insults. Given that I view this as relaxation, it doesn't work very well.
Sorry, this is exactly my point. Show us some empirical proof, or STFU. What's that? Don't have empirical proof? Then you don't have facts. You have ideology.
I'm no economist, but thinking about it, 'forced central bank interest rates' are not the cause for most bubbles I can think of.
Bubbles - Beanie baby type bubbles happen frequently, but are ultimately rather minor. Most people 'investing' in 'collectibles' are individuals limited to their own money. NOT caused by interest rates of any sort. Housing Bubble - perhaps encouraged by low interest rates, but I'd argue that it was far more caused by government policies other than interest rates, to wit the 'orders' from the administration to Fannie and Freddie to get more people into homes..COM bubble - the fallout of a 'gold rush' into an entirely new industry field.
Starting on? Hell, I've had 4K for my TV for almost a year now and I consider myself a luddite at this point (of course that was an upgrade from a tube tv:-)
You're bleeding edge dude; the screens haven't yet reached 'significant' market penetration. Media availability is also somewhat limited.
You'll know they're mainstream when walmart starts stocking both the sets and movies for them.
First: 1080p is NOT included as per wikipedia. Second: I'm not talking about NTSC, but internet video from the bad, bad old days. Third: Again, we're moving away from NTSC standards, even movie standards. Higher frame rates are possible.
In short: computer video was lousier than your imaginings in the early days. The improvement is ongoing. 120Hz would indeed be 'the future'.
I have a Seasonic in my current machine that's pushing 8 years now, and it's still going strong. Like I said, 'less likely'.
You can't hold the lack of certification against power supplies from before the certification program began. If they've lasted this long they're probably from a reputable company in the first place.
My main thought today is that it's mostly the 'Yumcha' and bargain-price supplies that aren't going to have the certification today, indicating inferior parts.
As you say, the Seasonic has relatively tight controls on it's rails. Remember, we're not talking about average computer users here, but gamers, the principle reason to overclock and all that jazz. Ergo, they're more likely to be interested in voltage and stuff.
True, in a sense. However, often the wired improvement came first, and is now being applied to wireless, and note that I used the word 'fiber' as opposed to 'wired'. Not all radio techniques apply to optical fiber. Now coax cable, that's where it probably applies.
Most FTTH use cases could be replaced with this, although FTTH can roll tomorrow and this is still vaporware - 15 years is a lot of productivity.
But the speed of fiber keeps marching along, even as that of wireless creeps up. You also run into that wireless transmission effectively takes up a lot more 'space' than fiber - so you're always sharing the medium.
You can do a lot with directional antennas, but still not as much isolation as available with fiber. So you have to consider the bandwidth not in isolation, but when all your neighbors want fast wireless internet as well.
Not just that. I could give fiber speed to ONE user in an area by wireless. To 10% of the population, much less 'everybody'? Not happening.
BTW, 'Shannon's Law' got a snerk from me. Another acronym crossover from two different fields.
Data Transmission: Shannon–Hartley theorem Firearms: Shannon's Law, which forbids firing guns into the air in Arizona. You're living in the wrong area if ballistic lead is interfering with your wireless signal on a routine basis.;)
You don't understand what accuracy, precision, causation, or correlation means.
Sure I do. You just don't like it. Also, personal attack. To me, at least, that means that you lack a suitable argument, thus must resort to fallacies.
Now, as I've said earlier, nobody's perfect, and I'm certainly no exception. So I take the occasional one in stride.
As such you really can't have this discussion.
And you probably shouldn't be because besides not knowing what the above words mean, you don't know what logical fallacies are. Of course, here I'm just mirroring your statements because that's the way I tend to be. We're having it, obviously.
Here is your point. You want a TAX for emissions. You are not internalizing anything. You're leveling a tax.
You ragged on me about not knowing about a couple 'not even in the prototype stage' geo-engineering ideas, so I'll rag on you about not knowing about pigovian taxes.
Yes, I'm leveling a tax. The purpose of the tax is to, as best as possible, compensate for an external expense, IE pollution, by levying a tax that's directed at the pollution which causes the harm, in order to properly balance the economics. IE ensure that burning coal in a plant without pollution controls isn't actually economic compared to having the controls in place, or even alternate power production systems, as the coal power is now properly placed.
Or, in short, 'internalizing the external expense'.
So, you don't get to tell me that I'm not 'internalizing' the cost of pollution. It's a known common economic term, after all. I'm mirroring you again, by the way.
Full stop.
So you're rage quitting because you're losing the debate. Have a nice life!
Slashdot Mirror
And seriously, they carted him to the ER? It was within golf cart distance? Or was that just an inappropriate choice of words? Maybe the problem isn't limited to the golf crowd at your job...
It's a known turn of phrase at least in American English. 'Hauled off' would have also worked, 'carted off' tends to imply an ambulance to me. IE he was treated as cargo. Then again - being carried off a sporting field after injury seems appropriate:
http://profootballtalk.nbcspor...
http://profootballtalk.nbcspor...
http://www.cincinnati.com/stor...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08...
There's a fairly good chance that he was indeed carted off, at least initially - by another golf cart.
Decades ago one of my sisters had a lazy eye. She had to wear an eye patch on the good eye for a while, that's all. Simple solution that doesn't interfere much with their daily lives.
Fixes a decent percentage of the population, sure, but what about those for which the eyepatch fails?
It's effectively like a simple Polaroid photo sheet. If it comes out black, not exposed to light. If it comes out white, exposed.
Not a golfer, but I remember a few courses dad took me on restricted the carts to paved paths and 'just off it' to park. I assume they didn't want their greens messed up.
They simply don't trust a cyclist, who doesn't have at least one foot firmly on the ground, to not pedal out in front of them.
Odd, drivers tend to have that view of me even when I have both feet on the ground straddling my bike, looking at my phone.
I mean, I'm wearing a helmet*, but I'm not in 'racer' gear otherwise.
*Mainly because I've managed to use a bicycle helmet up. I like my skull.
Thus why he said that driving through a deactivated school zone slowly is being an 'assbag'. Because he's not only going slow, he's slowing down everybody behind them.
Look, here in the states residential streets are typically already 25mph - the speed limit for most school zones. Most schools only abut against 1-2 higher speed streets. Get the kids over them safely, the rest of their trip is on 25mph residential streets where kids are to be expected.
We just don't feel the need to keep the speed limit lower when kids are unlikely to be present. Thus the systems of lights. Your system of permanent speeds in this situation is fine, and easier for self-driving cars to handle, but that's not the case in most of the USA and Europe.
It normally amounts to political. People drive what they feel is safe, normally speaking.
More in depth reasons vary - impressions of safety*, noise abatement(doesn't work if not followed), the idea that increasing the speed limit will increase speed on the road(it normally doesn't), even revenue generation - the cops get to write 20+ over tickets rather than 10+ over, and the former is a much bigger fine. etc...
*Despite evidence being that speed limits that are too low are almost/more as dangerous as too high, because they tend to increase speed differentials.
FTA - "Despite the awkward encounter, the cyclist didn’t leave with a negative impression of self-driving cars."
Imagine that, somebody driving a fixie who understands testing! That "The two guys inside were laughing and punching stuff into a laptop." means that, yes, they have a sense of humor and the absurd, but are punching stuff into a laptop, presumably to log additional information in for that encounter.
With this incident added to the list, the programmers can now develop a module to handle this behavior appropriately.
I get irked when a problem is encountered in a test and used to imply that the whole idea is stupid. This article isn't too bad, demonstrates WHY they're still doing testing.
I think that it's that he's willing to use himself as a test subject before inflicting it on others, fairly rare today.
Not that I suggest a heart surgeon do a transplant on himself or that a doctor inject himself with insulin if he's not diabetic...
But living in complete darkness for ~5 days can have unexpected developments/difficulties, it's probably best to NOT inflict that on kids until you know what to look for.
Personally, I think that people are incorrect when they think of Marx as an economist. He wasn't. He was more of a socialogist. His economics were a side-note compared to the class struggle portion. It's just that you can't build a utopian social theory, like many philosophers have before, without touching upon economics. He was right that the social structures of the time were unsustainable though.
That's a bit like trying to predict the weather by looking outside right this moment and forecasting it'll be the same tomorrow though. You observe the people, develop a model that attempts to predict their actions, then use the model to attempt to predict future actions, thus allowing you to make accurate forecasts.
Besides that, to misuse Asimov, predicting a human is hard. Predicting a group of humans is substantially easier.
and many saw it coming long before it folded.
Hell, I saw it coming. Like I said, not an economist and thus I wasn't about to try to peg when it'd happen. For that matter, I didn't even know how bad it was underneath.
My metric was incredibly simple: comparing median salary of home purchasers with median home price. When that started getting out of whack, combined with news like how the average home purchaser was in more debt than ever(student loans), my realization was that the prices were unsustainable.
I ended up buying a $15k house and living through the bursting in it. Then sold it for $15k.
I knew it was in beanie-baby territory when banks were handing out loans because they were counting on things like even if they didn't get ONE payment from the borrower they'd still get their money back in appreciation by the time they repossessed it and sold it. Even as the incomes of those that would like to move into said homes was stagnant.
As for Walmart stocking movies, why? Streaming is where it's all going. I admit there a paucity of 4K content, but I don't care, as that's not my use case. NTSC with a good story/plot is way more entertaining than 8K with a crap story/plot.
And why is there a paucity of streaming? Lack of bandwidth, currently... At least out in the boonies where I live.
For the sake of argument... how would I communicate that point to you if you're wrong, don't know it, think you're right, and are too pigheaded to realize it?
To quote Bill Nye from a creationist debate: "Evidence". His opponent, the creationist, said "Nothing" given the same question. So I'll ask you: What would it take to convince you of the same?
In this case, you'd either need to provide credible sources that show that coal power plant pollution doesn't cause illness, but keep in mind that I've posted scientific studies (scholar.google.com and academic credentials are lovely for accessing studies).
Evidence has been generally lacking in your rebuttals, which at least against me, renders them mostly ineffective. Note how when I do them when it involves a matter of 'fact', I start linking sources. Note how, when you did link sources, I did go and read them.
1. I think you're not going to understand what "for the sake of argument" or "theoretically" are going to mean in this situation and are going to refuse to go along with the thought experiment.
Disproved? Like I've said before, you have a bad rate at predicting my understanding, actions, or thoughts. That's not necessarily a bad thing, you don't really know me and I'm very much non-standard. The best description of my politics I've been labeled with is "practical minarchist".
I'll give you the last word here, sport. You're another of these sad dopes that gets conned by sophistry from much smarter people than yourself...
You do realize that such people are few and far between, right?
Am I perfect? Nothing is... but at least my mistakes and my errors are my own. You're a fucking parrot mouthing talking points. You think you understand what you're saying but you don't. its all just sounds to you.
And we're back to personal insults. Again, that's an indication of you not being able to attack my arguments. Besides, parrets understand more than you think. Note my use of supporting evidence.
So I'm going to ask, who do you think is feeding me these talking points? Why?
Personally, I wonder the same about you, now that you've brought up the idea.
Evidence:
1. The mismatch between my points and your responses. I talk about pollution, you bring up global warming. I talk about nuclear plants, you talk about how wind and solar can't replace coal/nuclear. Carbon credits I'll give you, given that it was what the thread was originaly about, and I hadn't gotten around to decrying them yet(see: not writing a book).
2. The disregard for my arguments - instead you double down, still don't provide evidence(I'll admit that I'm often lazy and will just post, but if pressed I start pulling sources).
3. The constant strawmanning and falling back on personal insults. Note how the worst I've said is that 'you're bad at predicting me'.
So, going by the theory that you're working off of talking points provided by a coal power advocate:
1. The talking points are geared towards countering a 'greenie', Not a pseudo-libertarian nuclear power advocate. In short I break the 'script.
2. I break script, you have the choice of doubling down and saying the same thing in a different way hoping that it'll change or I'll start following the script, but I don't.
3. When that doesn't work you fall back on personal insults. Given that I view this as relaxation, it doesn't work very well.
Like I said 'And movies'.
Sorry, this is exactly my point. Show us some empirical proof, or STFU. What's that? Don't have empirical proof? Then you don't have facts. You have ideology.
I'm no economist, but thinking about it, 'forced central bank interest rates' are not the cause for most bubbles I can think of.
Bubbles - Beanie baby type bubbles happen frequently, but are ultimately rather minor. Most people 'investing' in 'collectibles' are individuals limited to their own money. NOT caused by interest rates of any sort. .COM bubble - the fallout of a 'gold rush' into an entirely new industry field.
Housing Bubble - perhaps encouraged by low interest rates, but I'd argue that it was far more caused by government policies other than interest rates, to wit the 'orders' from the administration to Fannie and Freddie to get more people into homes.
Starting on? Hell, I've had 4K for my TV for almost a year now and I consider myself a luddite at this point (of course that was an upgrade from a tube tv :-)
You're bleeding edge dude; the screens haven't yet reached 'significant' market penetration. Media availability is also somewhat limited.
You'll know they're mainstream when walmart starts stocking both the sets and movies for them.
First: 1080p is NOT included as per wikipedia.
Second: I'm not talking about NTSC, but internet video from the bad, bad old days.
Third: Again, we're moving away from NTSC standards, even movie standards. Higher frame rates are possible.
In short: computer video was lousier than your imaginings in the early days. The improvement is ongoing. 120Hz would indeed be 'the future'.
I have a Seasonic in my current machine that's pushing 8 years now, and it's still going strong. Like I said, 'less likely'.
You can't hold the lack of certification against power supplies from before the certification program began. If they've lasted this long they're probably from a reputable company in the first place.
My main thought today is that it's mostly the 'Yumcha' and bargain-price supplies that aren't going to have the certification today, indicating inferior parts.
As you say, the Seasonic has relatively tight controls on it's rails. Remember, we're not talking about average computer users here, but gamers, the principle reason to overclock and all that jazz. Ergo, they're more likely to be interested in voltage and stuff.
True, in a sense. However, often the wired improvement came first, and is now being applied to wireless, and note that I used the word 'fiber' as opposed to 'wired'. Not all radio techniques apply to optical fiber. Now coax cable, that's where it probably applies.
However, consider this. When the internet was just getting going, 320 video was enough, normally downloaded overnight/day to watch later.
Then 320 became 480, moved to 640, 720, and 1080.
Today, we're starting on '2k' and '4k' screens. From interlaced 30hz to progressive 120Hz, 3D, etc...
Most FTTH use cases could be replaced with this, although FTTH can roll tomorrow and this is still vaporware - 15 years is a lot of productivity.
But the speed of fiber keeps marching along, even as that of wireless creeps up. You also run into that wireless transmission effectively takes up a lot more 'space' than fiber - so you're always sharing the medium.
You can do a lot with directional antennas, but still not as much isolation as available with fiber. So you have to consider the bandwidth not in isolation, but when all your neighbors want fast wireless internet as well.
Not just that. I could give fiber speed to ONE user in an area by wireless. To 10% of the population, much less 'everybody'? Not happening.
BTW, 'Shannon's Law' got a snerk from me. Another acronym crossover from two different fields.
Data Transmission: Shannon–Hartley theorem ;)
Firearms: Shannon's Law, which forbids firing guns into the air in Arizona. You're living in the wrong area if ballistic lead is interfering with your wireless signal on a routine basis.
You don't understand what accuracy, precision, causation, or correlation means.
Sure I do. You just don't like it. Also, personal attack. To me, at least, that means that you lack a suitable argument, thus must resort to fallacies.
Now, as I've said earlier, nobody's perfect, and I'm certainly no exception. So I take the occasional one in stride.
As such you really can't have this discussion.
And you probably shouldn't be because besides not knowing what the above words mean, you don't know what logical fallacies are. Of course, here I'm just mirroring your statements because that's the way I tend to be. We're having it, obviously.
Here is your point. You want a TAX for emissions. You are not internalizing anything. You're leveling a tax.
You ragged on me about not knowing about a couple 'not even in the prototype stage' geo-engineering ideas, so I'll rag on you about not knowing about pigovian taxes.
Yes, I'm leveling a tax. The purpose of the tax is to, as best as possible, compensate for an external expense, IE pollution, by levying a tax that's directed at the pollution which causes the harm, in order to properly balance the economics. IE ensure that burning coal in a plant without pollution controls isn't actually economic compared to having the controls in place, or even alternate power production systems, as the coal power is now properly placed.
Or, in short, 'internalizing the external expense'.
So, you don't get to tell me that I'm not 'internalizing' the cost of pollution. It's a known common economic term, after all. I'm mirroring you again, by the way.
Full stop.
So you're rage quitting because you're losing the debate. Have a nice life!
Newegg.
"Requires 42A on the 12V Rail" = 504 Watts.