Can make sense if the TCP/IP chip is produced in such vast quantities that it benefits from economy of scale: It might work out cheaper to use a really tiny chip plus a TCP/IP support chip than it does to use a more powerful microcontroller that has enough capacity for the TCP/IP.
32MB? Bah. I remember the days when you could fit a whole OS in a hundred K! And 640K was enough for anyone!
On a more serious note: The 'internet of things' hype is supposed to be about putting sensors in just about everything. 32MB is a lot of data for a sensor.
No, you pay a tariff, and it's *still* illegal. The tariff is to compensate copyright holders for the assumed infringement. It applies only to music because when it was introduced, music was the only infringement of major concern. Technology wasn't up to copying DVDs yet.
Fourteen years was the original term, and seems quite reasonable - if a commercial work hasn't brought in enough money in that long, it isn't going to bring in much more with a longer term.
What type of idioticly designed pump takes half an hour to run a software upgrade?
Let me guess: Some useless manager thought it'd be easier to stick a full-fledged PC running Windows inside every pump than it would be to hire someone who can do proper embedded software development?
Many have commented on this shift. It appears - at least to casual observation - that the social conventions regarding age-appropriate media and activities are becoming less important. Things that would once have been regarded as shamefully childish for anyone past their teenage years are now a lot more acceptable for all ages.
The reaction to this seems to fall along political lines. I've seen a number of columns from conservative authors warning about the infantalisation of society and suggesting it will weaken western civilisation as people lose the emotional maturity to make rational decisions - but there are also those of a more liberal bent that celebrate how the artificially imposed notions of age-appropriate are falling, allowing people to enjoy what they like without shame and allowing media that was once constrained by a socially-mandated target age to develop in new directions.
To give some small sliver to credit to comics, their stock-sexyness isn't just a female thing. While it is true that their female superpowered characters generally wear accessorised bikinis, have breasts bigger than their heads and spines made our of rubber, the men fare no better. Just about every male superpowered character gets the torso of a bodybuilder and a face angled like a brick.
Blame the readers. The publishers just make what they know will sell.
Send suspected botters a captcha. If they don't get it, disable their weapons, set them PvP enabled, and broadcast the location of some 'known criminals' for players to come after.
A well-designed game makes the grinding feel progressive the natural. Usually this means giving the player always a series of goals to strive towards in different time frames: Your long term goal might be to defeat the UberMegaDragon boss, but right now your objective is to clear this level and collect enough kobold stomachs to trade in for some leather underwear of fire resistance.
In a badly designed game, the immediate goal is too far away and obviously artificial: You need to collect a thousand gems, but only 1% of the monsters drop them and the gems serve no purpose except to create a time barrier - and it's especially annoying if you know you can buy them on the game website for real money.
McDonalds is already working on automated ordering systems, and has prototypes in place at some trial restraunts.
They don't replace all the kitchen staff, but they augment them so fewer staff are needed total. You don't need someone standing at the till to take your order - you enter it onto a screen and pay via card. They still need one attended till for the occasional special case (Technophobes and the visually impaired), but it lowers the staff count significently.
The industrial revolution is somewhat comparable. It's an imperfect comparison, but it's the closest we have. We can learn a few lessons from it: - The loss of certain skilled jobs forced people to turn to much lower-skilled jobs in their place, which heavily depressed wages to the point that many workers were effectively living in poverty - many families to a single room accomodation, constructed by the owner of the nearby factory specifically to provide minimal-cost living. - While those on the bottom did suffer, the reduction in manufacturing cost was so great that many products that had formerly been luxury goods turned into not just everyday affordables, but even expendable items. This in turn increased demand, which to a large extent compensated for the increase in per-labourer prouctivity.
The big question today is on the second point: Would lower prices increase demand enough? Even if that happens, it would also be an environmental disaster.
Teachers don't just teach. I work at a school (Secondary - that's ages 11-16 for you yanks), and I can assure you that the academic grasp of a subject is only a very small part of what they do. The difference between a good teacher and a bad teacher is in their understanding of students and classroom control ability. A good teacher has what it takes to keep thirty students focused on their studies throughout a lesson that can last more than an hour, instead of getting distracted talking to their friends and playing games on their phones. A good teacher can tell when a student is struggling to grasp a concept and single them out for personal attention, rephasing it for them in a manner they can more easily understand. A good teacher can keep a student focused even when they find the subject entirely uninteresting and have no desire to study it.
A bad teacher just stands in front of the class all lesson and lectures. If it were that easy, we'd have replaced them with video recordings long ago.
1) Truck does calculations before the journey, determines that it will need fueling and that it's database of fueling pumps shows there is a suitable station en route, plus a second one a little further along in case the first becomes inoperative en route. 2). Truck pulls up to the fueling station. 3) Truck crypto-auths with pump to validate that it is operated by a customer authorised to use the robo-pump and specifies the required volume of fuel. 4) Robo-pump inserts pipe into the fuel port, with the aid of the tracking pattern painted around it. 5) Fuel is pumped. Pipe is removed. 6) Truck drives away.
It doesn't take super-advanced technology to make a robot that can shove a small pipe into a larger opening with a tracking pattern painted around it. If the self-driving truck takes off, it wouldn't be long before the fully-automated gas pump follows.
Mass cancels: F = cf*M*g A = F / M A= cf * M * g / M.
Mathematically, it looks like mass doesn't matter. It's an easy mistake, but wrong: Firstly because the friction important for breaking is in the break discs and pads, not where the rubber meets the road. Secondly because the coefficient of friction model isn't entirely accurate - it's a simplified model only. In the case of a truck skidding it isn't accurate because the tyres will abrade and overheat long before the skid is complete.
Breaking doesn't mean jamming the wheels stationary and skidding to a stop - doing so means losing all control of the vehicle and wouldn't actually work very well as the rubber would almost instantly become so hot that the coefficient of friction decreases. Breaking means applying a lot of resistance to the rotation of the wheels, which isn't dependant on the mass of the vehicle.
"Friction force is a function of the coefficient of friction times the downward force."
No, that's the simplified version you get taught in school. It's a model good enough for many situations, but it's far from accurate in all - it's just easy to calculate.
True, but eventually your car is going to be old and rusty. When you buy your replacement, it may well come with an auto-drive capability in all but the cheapest models.
New technology is coming along. The situation is almost unprecidented - the closest comparison would be the industrial revolution, but even that is just a poor analogy. This means that history cannot serve as our guide - and those fictional scenarios may well be what lies ahead.
Slashdot Mirror
Can make sense if the TCP/IP chip is produced in such vast quantities that it benefits from economy of scale: It might work out cheaper to use a really tiny chip plus a TCP/IP support chip than it does to use a more powerful microcontroller that has enough capacity for the TCP/IP.
32MB? Bah. I remember the days when you could fit a whole OS in a hundred K! And 640K was enough for anyone!
On a more serious note: The 'internet of things' hype is supposed to be about putting sensors in just about everything. 32MB is a lot of data for a sensor.
I use another approach.
1. Find a friend who pirates a lot too.
2. Swap retroshare keys.
3. Goto 1.
No, you pay a tariff, and it's *still* illegal. The tariff is to compensate copyright holders for the assumed infringement. It applies only to music because when it was introduced, music was the only infringement of major concern. Technology wasn't up to copying DVDs yet.
Fourteen years was the original term, and seems quite reasonable - if a commercial work hasn't brought in enough money in that long, it isn't going to bring in much more with a longer term.
There's also the knock-off Nigel to be found in every school and office - the person who will swap a drive with anyone who asks.
What type of idioticly designed pump takes half an hour to run a software upgrade?
Let me guess: Some useless manager thought it'd be easier to stick a full-fledged PC running Windows inside every pump than it would be to hire someone who can do proper embedded software development?
I read that as a list of characters who appeared in bad movies.
Black Widow appeared in good movies, but as a fairly minor character. I've not seen Age of Ultron yet, I hear she gets her own sub-plot in that.
Many have commented on this shift. It appears - at least to casual observation - that the social conventions regarding age-appropriate media and activities are becoming less important. Things that would once have been regarded as shamefully childish for anyone past their teenage years are now a lot more acceptable for all ages.
The reaction to this seems to fall along political lines. I've seen a number of columns from conservative authors warning about the infantalisation of society and suggesting it will weaken western civilisation as people lose the emotional maturity to make rational decisions - but there are also those of a more liberal bent that celebrate how the artificially imposed notions of age-appropriate are falling, allowing people to enjoy what they like without shame and allowing media that was once constrained by a socially-mandated target age to develop in new directions.
Given that half their characters are either aliens, engineered or highly unusual mutants, their genetics might not even be xx/xy.
To give some small sliver to credit to comics, their stock-sexyness isn't just a female thing. While it is true that their female superpowered characters generally wear accessorised bikinis, have breasts bigger than their heads and spines made our of rubber, the men fare no better. Just about every male superpowered character gets the torso of a bodybuilder and a face angled like a brick.
Blame the readers. The publishers just make what they know will sell.
We could make fun of every website of inep design.
There are so many ways that could be abused though - both by the ISPs and the end users.
Game server too laggy? Switch it to port 443 UDP - ISPs will think it's Skype voice and give it top priority.
Send suspected botters a captcha. If they don't get it, disable their weapons, set them PvP enabled, and broadcast the location of some 'known criminals' for players to come after.
A well-designed game makes the grinding feel progressive the natural. Usually this means giving the player always a series of goals to strive towards in different time frames: Your long term goal might be to defeat the UberMegaDragon boss, but right now your objective is to clear this level and collect enough kobold stomachs to trade in for some leather underwear of fire resistance.
In a badly designed game, the immediate goal is too far away and obviously artificial: You need to collect a thousand gems, but only 1% of the monsters drop them and the gems serve no purpose except to create a time barrier - and it's especially annoying if you know you can buy them on the game website for real money.
McDonalds is already working on automated ordering systems, and has prototypes in place at some trial restraunts.
They don't replace all the kitchen staff, but they augment them so fewer staff are needed total. You don't need someone standing at the till to take your order - you enter it onto a screen and pay via card. They still need one attended till for the occasional special case (Technophobes and the visually impaired), but it lowers the staff count significently.
The industrial revolution is somewhat comparable. It's an imperfect comparison, but it's the closest we have. We can learn a few lessons from it:
- The loss of certain skilled jobs forced people to turn to much lower-skilled jobs in their place, which heavily depressed wages to the point that many workers were effectively living in poverty - many families to a single room accomodation, constructed by the owner of the nearby factory specifically to provide minimal-cost living.
- While those on the bottom did suffer, the reduction in manufacturing cost was so great that many products that had formerly been luxury goods turned into not just everyday affordables, but even expendable items. This in turn increased demand, which to a large extent compensated for the increase in per-labourer prouctivity.
The big question today is on the second point: Would lower prices increase demand enough? Even if that happens, it would also be an environmental disaster.
Teachers don't just teach. I work at a school (Secondary - that's ages 11-16 for you yanks), and I can assure you that the academic grasp of a subject is only a very small part of what they do. The difference between a good teacher and a bad teacher is in their understanding of students and classroom control ability. A good teacher has what it takes to keep thirty students focused on their studies throughout a lesson that can last more than an hour, instead of getting distracted talking to their friends and playing games on their phones. A good teacher can tell when a student is struggling to grasp a concept and single them out for personal attention, rephasing it for them in a manner they can more easily understand. A good teacher can keep a student focused even when they find the subject entirely uninteresting and have no desire to study it.
A bad teacher just stands in front of the class all lesson and lectures. If it were that easy, we'd have replaced them with video recordings long ago.
1) Truck does calculations before the journey, determines that it will need fueling and that it's database of fueling pumps shows there is a suitable station en route, plus a second one a little further along in case the first becomes inoperative en route.
2). Truck pulls up to the fueling station.
3) Truck crypto-auths with pump to validate that it is operated by a customer authorised to use the robo-pump and specifies the required volume of fuel.
4) Robo-pump inserts pipe into the fuel port, with the aid of the tracking pattern painted around it.
5) Fuel is pumped. Pipe is removed.
6) Truck drives away.
It doesn't take super-advanced technology to make a robot that can shove a small pipe into a larger opening with a tracking pattern painted around it. If the self-driving truck takes off, it wouldn't be long before the fully-automated gas pump follows.
Mass cancels:
F = cf*M*g
A = F / M
A= cf * M * g / M.
Mathematically, it looks like mass doesn't matter. It's an easy mistake, but wrong: Firstly because the friction important for breaking is in the break discs and pads, not where the rubber meets the road. Secondly because the coefficient of friction model isn't entirely accurate - it's a simplified model only. In the case of a truck skidding it isn't accurate because the tyres will abrade and overheat long before the skid is complete.
Breaking doesn't mean jamming the wheels stationary and skidding to a stop - doing so means losing all control of the vehicle and wouldn't actually work very well as the rubber would almost instantly become so hot that the coefficient of friction decreases. Breaking means applying a lot of resistance to the rotation of the wheels, which isn't dependant on the mass of the vehicle.
"Friction force is a function of the coefficient of friction times the downward force."
No, that's the simplified version you get taught in school. It's a model good enough for many situations, but it's far from accurate in all - it's just easy to calculate.
True, but eventually your car is going to be old and rusty. When you buy your replacement, it may well come with an auto-drive capability in all but the cheapest models.
"Fortunately, those scenarios are fictional."
For now.
New technology is coming along. The situation is almost unprecidented - the closest comparison would be the industrial revolution, but even that is just a poor analogy. This means that history cannot serve as our guide - and those fictional scenarios may well be what lies ahead.