The US was subject to a coup d'etat in 2016, in which a hostile foreign power engaged in a massive fraud and disinformation campaign, largely using the internet, to install a sympathetic and incompetent man as president.
The NSA claims that surveillance powers are necessary to protect the country from hostile foreign actors who wish it harm -- but they have these powers and nonetheless didn't manage to protect the US from said coup. So, if these surveillance powers are precisely to stop information-warfare skulduggery, but they don't work, maybe they aren't worth the privacy tradeoffs?
A supporting bit of evidence for your argument is that there's a large population of nurses who are regular recreational users of opiates. They don't tend to OD (because they have a reliable supply), they still keep their jobs, and the biggest issue comes from the occasional cases where they screw something up and intoxication gets blamed. (I have no idea whether they screw things up more often than nurses who aren't addicted.)
IMO the blood from every one of those carfentanil OD's is on the DEA's hands.
The therapeutic index is useful in a medical setting when drugs are actually what they say they are. But when you're dealing with street drugs, do you trust your dealer to get doses measured in micrograms right?
Could we not legalize weaker opiates (perhaps up to and including heroin), while keeping fentanyl and its analogs illegal?
Fentanyl, given the LD50, probably ought not to be in widespread circulation anyway because of its suitability as a poison. Carfentanil certainly shouldn't; I'm surprised it's not been used as an assassination tool yet.
I used Chromium for a while on my (Lubuntu) laptop, only to notice that it had what appeared to be memory leaks in it -- gradually escalating RAM usage until it blew up the entire system, if I didn't kill the process once in a while and restart it.
Now I'm using Opera which doesn't do this, but seems just as fast.
I had to turn off "Fast Boot" anyway, and wanted to preserve the ability to boot off of other things as well. Boot-sector shenanigans are pretty uncommon these days, so on balance I wanted it off.
Yep. I had a laptop that came with Windows 8 on it.
I booted it once into Windows to change UEFI settings and then put Lubuntu on it.
Well, a friend had a Windows question for me when I was away at a conference. No problem! I booted my laptop into Win8, looked up how to do the thing, and told her. I went to bed.
I woke up to find that my system had:
1) autoupdated to Windows 10 2) fucked the bootloader so I couldn't boot into Linux any more.
This is on top of the fact that Windows updates take about a year to complete and reenable a bunch of crap that I keep disabling ("Windows Media x").
Posting from a Dell XPS 13 (a chassis smaller than most 13" machines because of their tiny-bezel screens) that's run Lubuntu flawlessly since the day I got it.
We have had a century to figure out the "unplugged" car interface, and it is simpler: dials for speed and tachometer, nothing else. Drivers train from an early age to drive with this sort of instrumentation.
The lack of safety with these HUD's is likely a consequence of inexperience both on the part of the HUD designers and the drivers. Once the interfaces themselves iterate a few times, and then drivers get experienced with them, I imagine they'll be much safer.
"Trying to do what they have been doing for years" also means "running some software without needing or wanting anything from the OS rather than a window manager, device drivers, a filesystem, and a networking stack". Just because the "platform" isn't "innovating" doesn't mean that people don't run nifty software on it.
Most of the frustration with Windows comes from trying to get the Microsoft marketing bullshit to fuck off so we can use computers for what computers are for: running software.
Yes, but they're very cheap. They'll melt eventually but, in the meantime, should deliver enough power back to the attacker to screw up eyeballs and sensors.
Slashdot Mirror
The US was subject to a coup d'etat in 2016, in which a hostile foreign power engaged in a massive fraud and disinformation campaign, largely using the internet, to install a sympathetic and incompetent man as president.
The NSA claims that surveillance powers are necessary to protect the country from hostile foreign actors who wish it harm -- but they have these powers and nonetheless didn't manage to protect the US from said coup. So, if these surveillance powers are precisely to stop information-warfare skulduggery, but they don't work, maybe they aren't worth the privacy tradeoffs?
!#$&&%^$*()! looks like a vi command, not KDE or GNOME.
Exactly.
A supporting bit of evidence for your argument is that there's a large population of nurses who are regular recreational users of opiates. They don't tend to OD (because they have a reliable supply), they still keep their jobs, and the biggest issue comes from the occasional cases where they screw something up and intoxication gets blamed. (I have no idea whether they screw things up more often than nurses who aren't addicted.)
IMO the blood from every one of those carfentanil OD's is on the DEA's hands.
The therapeutic index is useful in a medical setting when drugs are actually what they say they are. But when you're dealing with street drugs, do you trust your dealer to get doses measured in micrograms right?
Could we not legalize weaker opiates (perhaps up to and including heroin), while keeping fentanyl and its analogs illegal?
Fentanyl, given the LD50, probably ought not to be in widespread circulation anyway because of its suitability as a poison. Carfentanil certainly shouldn't; I'm surprised it's not been used as an assassination tool yet.
Disappointed I had to scroll so far down to find the first covfefe.
The guy holding the basket still has his account...
I used Chromium for a while on my (Lubuntu) laptop, only to notice that it had what appeared to be memory leaks in it -- gradually escalating RAM usage until it blew up the entire system, if I didn't kill the process once in a while and restart it.
Now I'm using Opera which doesn't do this, but seems just as fast.
I had to turn off "Fast Boot" anyway, and wanted to preserve the ability to boot off of other things as well. Boot-sector shenanigans are pretty uncommon these days, so on balance I wanted it off.
Yep. I had a laptop that came with Windows 8 on it.
I booted it once into Windows to change UEFI settings and then put Lubuntu on it.
Well, a friend had a Windows question for me when I was away at a conference. No problem! I booted my laptop into Win8, looked up how to do the thing, and told her. I went to bed.
I woke up to find that my system had:
1) autoupdated to Windows 10
2) fucked the bootloader so I couldn't boot into Linux any more.
This is on top of the fact that Windows updates take about a year to complete and reenable a bunch of crap that I keep disabling ("Windows Media x").
Posting from a Dell XPS 13 (a chassis smaller than most 13" machines because of their tiny-bezel screens) that's run Lubuntu flawlessly since the day I got it.
Very definitely not true. I have a dual-boot laptop with Win10 (running Classic Shell) and Lubuntu. Guess which one uses more resources?
Why is it an OS function to take 3D pictures of things?
I want my OS to provide basic functionality and then let me decide what toys to put on top of it.
There's an entire song cycle, in fact; Baba Yetu is the first of a set.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
They can get whatever they want because they're a cartel whose products the government mandates everyone buy.
If you believe that speed limits are always set in order to maintain road safety then I have a bridge made of waterproof gingerbread to sell you.
Does this car have regenerative braking? If so then it's even less, since once you stop you're going to be recovering a lot of that kinetic energy.
Isn't that basically a Chevy Volt?
We have had a century to figure out the "unplugged" car interface, and it is simpler: dials for speed and tachometer, nothing else. Drivers train from an early age to drive with this sort of instrumentation.
The lack of safety with these HUD's is likely a consequence of inexperience both on the part of the HUD designers and the drivers. Once the interfaces themselves iterate a few times, and then drivers get experienced with them, I imagine they'll be much safer.
What sort of mission do these drones fly where even a 2000msec latency would matter?
Once you've eaten one shit sandwich and it tasted like ass, you're a bit leery of the same guy who says "buttttt this one's chocolate!"
"Trying to do what they have been doing for years" also means "running some software without needing or wanting anything from the OS rather than a window manager, device drivers, a filesystem, and a networking stack". Just because the "platform" isn't "innovating" doesn't mean that people don't run nifty software on it.
Most of the frustration with Windows comes from trying to get the Microsoft marketing bullshit to fuck off so we can use computers for what computers are for: running software.
It won't even ignite things 2m away, assuming uniform diffuse reflections in the half-volume facing the surface:
30 kW / (2 pi r^2) = 1200 watts per square meter = sunlight.
Yes, but they're very cheap. They'll melt eventually but, in the meantime, should deliver enough power back to the attacker to screw up eyeballs and sensors.