IMO, microseconds since epoch stored in a signed 64-bit integer is the ideal time representation for any but the most extreme requirements. Covers a range of +-~300K years with microsecond precision, in fewer bytes than a minute-accuracy UTC string. The rare applications that need either more than microsecond precision or to handle dates before 290,221 BCE or after 294,161 CE can change the units and possibly the zero point.
If you can't say "fuck" people with poor vocabularies will just find a new way to convey the same sentiment.
Fixed that for you.
I'll grant that there are situations in which curse words are the only possible way to accurately express what needs to be said. I've personally encountered such situations. Twice. In 50 years of life. Swearing doesn't offend me -- if it ever did my years in the military would have beaten that out of me -- I just consider it evidence of inadequate command of the English language.
"White genocide" apparently is the White Supremacists' term for interracial sex. The logic being that if all white people have sex exclusively with non-white people, then nobody will be white any more.
Yes, except exclusivity is not required for "genocide". If a non-trivial percentage of whites are willing to mate with non-whites, and if there is no core of whites who exclusively mate with whites, then eventually there will be no pure whites.
That's the theory. Of course, it's all rather ridiculous. IMO we should all miscegenate away! With enough mixing the notion of racial identity will become difficult to maintain and remove this particular arbitrary division in humanity. Yes, I guess I'm a white traitor for believing such things. But, then, I'm 1/32nd Polynesian, plus some mixture of northern and southern European stock, so I'm already something of a mutt and why should I care about "white identity"?
This is Arizona. Unless it's actually raining humidity is almost never above 40%, and during the summer months 20% is more typical. If your house is too humid -- a problem I've never actually heard anyone in Arizona complain about -- just open some windows.
How does physics make it difficult for self-driving cars to spot wheelchairs and personal scooters? And how does physics cause the cars to often slam on the brakes?
I have an ethernet jack because I need to work from multiple VLANs.
I have a USB3 hub with an ergonomic keyboard, trackball and external drives.
I literally have every every port full on my 2015 MBP.
I have a desktop machine for all of that stuff. My laptop is a laptop, which means that it usually isn't plugged into anything -- not even power -- when i'm using it. I do keep a single adapter in my laptop bag, which gives me Ethernet, HDMI, SD and four USB-A ports, and I have a couple tiny USB-C to USB-A adapters as well. But I rarely have to use any of them.
So I don't mind the port situation on my new MBP at all... and I quite like the fact that I can plug power in from either side. I'm torn on the touch strip; it does make some stuff nicer. If it were more configurable, I'd actually like it.
The keyboard, however, seriously sucks. I haven't gotten around to turning in my old MBP yet, and so I occasionally pick it up to type something. Sooo much better to type on, though I prefer the new one for travel, just because it's thinner and lighter. The keyboard is so bad that if Apple doesn't fix it in the next iteration, I'm going switch when it's time to replace this one. I prefer Linux to OS X anyway.
I am guessing you are either in an Apple-centric shop where everything has been setup for you (AppleTVs on every TV/Projector, etc)
I don't know about the other guy, but I work for Google. VC and presentations are done with Hangouts, which makes it very easy to present wirelessly, and in fact doesn't really support a wired video input well.
you don't do anything that requires connectivity to other devices.
Not so much on my laptop. My desktop, however... I just counted and I have a total of 37 USB ports (10 on the machine, four on each of my three monitors, a 13-port hub on my desk and two on my keyboard). 22 of those 37 ports are in use. Oh, and both Ethernet ports are in use, as are three of the four DisplayPort sockets on my video card. No laptop in existence comes remotely close to having enough ports for me.
Self-driving cars are much better at seeing bicyclists than human drivers are. They look in all directions all the time, never get tired or distracted and can even see through some obstacles that block visible light.
Well, unless their collision avoidance systems are turned off. Human stupidity can defeat the best technology.
there has been no real improvement in batteries in more then 30 years
This is very wrong. 30 years ago NiCd was the best rechargeable battery technology on the market, soon to be replaced with the significantly-better NiMH. Li-ion batteries (early 90s) were a huge improvement over NiCd and NiMH in energy density, lack of "memory" and safety. We're still using them, but the details of the chemistries used and manufacturing processes have changed, resulting in steady but significant improvements year after year in energy density and cost. Li-ion energy densities today are 4X what they were when the first commercial cells hit the market.
According to the NYT, the Google wasn't obligated to pay him that money.
Sort of. By firing him they took away $150M in unvested stock that they'd given him just weeks before. Without an agreement he could have sued for that money, unless they could prove the termination was justified. I have no idea if he'd have gotten it, but he might have... and created a PR firestorm in the process. It's possible that the $90M payout saved Google money.
I'd be happy to take a position at Google. And I won't spend...time on SJW virtue signaling
Come on, they paid somebody $90m to receive a bj. Call me a SJW if you want, but that's just plain stupidity on Google's part in my book. It encourages more BS.
That's a deep mischaracterization. Google had already given Rubin $150M in stock that vested over time. By firing him, they effectively took that stock away, opening themselves up to a lawsuit in which they'd have had to prove that they had cause for firing Rubin. It would have been a circus. So instead they gave him $90M (effectively taking back $60M) in exchange for which he agreed to go quietly.
I think they could and should have fired him with no parachute and dealt with the PR storm. But saying they paid him $90M to receive a BJ is ridiculous. It would be more accurate (though still not very) to say that they fined him $60M for it.
and if they really need it, why are they not paying full cost?
Because bringing internet to rural locations is not massively profitable and disproportionately expensive which often leads to for-profit private enterprise passing them over and giving them piss poor service. This does not, however, mean that these communities would not benefit from better internet connectivity and that they would not increase their contribution to society at large if society bit the bullet and built them an internet access even if it is a bit more expensive. This basically boil down to what people in 'flyover country' are complaining about: 'nobody gives a shit about us'... and they have a point.
I live in the rural Mountain West, and currently pay $450 per month for my Internet service (dedicated point to point microwave link with an enterprise SLA). I stand to benefit enormously from government subsidies to bring fiber to homes like mine... but I'm not sure it really makes sense. The government initiatives for rural electrification and telephone made sense, because they brought important services to locations that otherwise wouldn't be served at all. But rural areas already do have Internet service, via WiMax, satellite, (slow) DSL and cellular service. It's not as good as "real" broadband, but neither are people in rural areas cut off. The web works just fine over these lesser services. Ping times are high, so online twitch gaming sucks.
why should rest of people subsidize them?
Why should we subsidise Oil companies? Coal companies? Arms companies? The Nuclear industry? Given the choice I'd rather subsidise farmers getting internet.
But farmers have Internet. And none of the farmers I know (and I know many) find their connections to be restrictive. Their kids grumble about ping times.
if there are benefits to the society at large from such subsidization, what are they?
Many, starting with rural kids having a powerful tool to educate themselves. When you are, for example, trying to understand how a sorting algorithm works one you tube video showing the algorithm at work can save you hours of pouring over books and mathematical formulas. In this regard there are nothing but benefits, even for adults
And rural kids can already do that.
It promotes tourism and industry in remote areas to have a proper internet connection since it makes device addicted wealthy urbanites more likely to go there
Meh. Except in locations so remote that the only option is satellite, it's already feasible to get "real" broadband, just expensive (like mine), and tourism industries can (and do) cover the cost without trouble. In truly remote locations, people understand that connectivity -- like everything else -- will be limited.
it enables farmers to process their produce into food products they can sell directly to the consumer
Um, what? How does faster Internet translate enable processing of produce? You're really reaching here.
... the list goes on.
But does it get any better? I doubt it. You were really stretching by the end there.
Internet connecting rural populations has all kinds of positive effects on rural areas.
Internet connection, yes. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about taking people from 3 mbps to 10 mbps (or higher).
In Scandinavia, Germany for example this has led to farmers and people in small villages begin able to rent out their empty rooms, apartments and houses to tourists on booking.com, airbnb.com, etc...
Umm, you can run a solid AirBnb operation with nothing more than a gig per month of cell data.
The well-off live primarily in suburbs, not rural areas. Wealthy suburbs are largely well-served with broadband because density is relatively high and they're able to pay well.
I use a 43" 4K TV which cost all of $300 because it can be run by any half decent graphics card and doesn't require multiple outs on the graphics card. It's equivalent to 4 1080p monitors.
When it comes to screens, it's more about pixels than size. An 8K monitor that's less than 30" is wasting a lot of pixels unless you have insanely go eyesight and like squinting.
No, once you have reasonable pixel density (dense enough that I can't see individual pixels from a range of 20" or so), it's all about size. Since my eyes have limited resolution, the only way to increase the amount of stuff I can have in my field of view at once (or in my field of view with only a head movement) is to increase the amount of that field of view that is covered with displays. This is why I have three monitors now.
VR will have you moving your head all over the place which is going to kill your neck in no time.
Nonsense. If this were true, the physical world would kill my neck [*]. Human necks are designed for looking around. Obviously I wouldn't want to place frequently-viewed materials above my head, and I would want to avoid placements that require me to make frequent repetitive neck motions, but it would be perfectly possible to design appropriate work layouts, just as I can lay out a bench of physical tools. Heck, given that I have a private office with a bit of room to move, I might even want to group virtual displays with distinct tasks in different parts of the room, so that I actually have to walk around a bit. Hmm. I'd need an easily-portable data entry device for that. VR gloves with good haptic feedback to make it seem like my keyboard follows me around? Dunno.
For all the time use, VR is not the best place to be. There are many reasons. For one, I'd hate to have to take it off every time someone comes in with a question.
Sufficiently-good AR would make removing it unnecessary. Though they might find it uncomfortable talking to you without being able to see your eyes. Unless they're using it, too.
You can do all of that in VR, they are called virtual desktops. You literally create them, zoom in/out/move wherever you want.
AR is completely different and not required.
The second sentence of the comment you replied to:
I currently have three largish monitors, a desktop environment with virtual desktops and layered windows... and I still don't have enough screen real estate.
Yes, I know all about virtual desktops. And, no, they don't solve my problem.
A free market is when willing sellers and willing buyers are prevented from doing business by middlemen with a monopoly position?
Well, Paypal and Stripe don't have a monopoly position. If the merchant acquiring banks start cutting Gab off from accepting credit card payments, then you would have a point.
The place I think I'd use VR is in the office. I currently have three largish monitors, a desktop environment with virtual desktops and layered windows... and I still don't have enough screen real estate. A VR headset with sufficiently-good movement tracking and resolution opens up the possibility of sitting in the center of most of a virtual sphere of high-resolution monitors -- ideally with some AR so that the monitors appear to be floating in my office, so I can see my office walls, my desk, keyboard, the cup of tea on the desk, etc., and interact with all of the physical stuff naturally while being able to see my virtual displays. The headset would also have to be light and comfortable enough for all-day wear. Bonus points if I can replace my office walls with a beach scene, etc., while still being able to see and use my desk.
I have done no investigation to see how far we are from making that possible. I suspect we're not there yet, even without the AR requirements.
"Just get the one with the driver in it, Achmed. The rest will stop and wait for us to unload them."
The lead vehicle will be an armored MRAP which doesn't bother hauling cargo, just lots of protection for the driver and response fire team. Oh, and a turret-mounted heavy machine gun or light autocannon.
Goog+ AUTOMATICALLY got linked to your G-Mail, YouTube, Goog Docs, everything.
This is because Google+ was actually two different things: A unified Google login and a social media network. I'm told that people at Google had been thinking about the idea of a single login to all Google products for a while, so when the social media thing got started, it became that single login, too. People (quite reasonably) misinterpreted it as an attempt to force them into using Google+, but it was really a separate thing. I think if the notion of a unified Google login had been pitched a year or two before the launch of Google+, people would have been fine with it. Combining it with Google+ certainly turned out to be a terrible idea.
Anyone who was even mildly curious about Goog+ dropped it like a toxic hotshit and never looked back.
Well, it still has about 500K regular users, so not everyone. Personally, I like Google+. It evolved to be more of an interest network than a social network, and that worked for me. Before Google+ I enjoyed USENET newsgroups focused on my interest, but they got buried in spam and most people drifted away. Google+ was an inferior replacement for USENET, but it was okay. I don't know what I'll replace Google+ with. Nothing, probably.
Slashdot Mirror
Using a signed 64-bit type.
IMO, microseconds since epoch stored in a signed 64-bit integer is the ideal time representation for any but the most extreme requirements. Covers a range of +-~300K years with microsecond precision, in fewer bytes than a minute-accuracy UTC string. The rare applications that need either more than microsecond precision or to handle dates before 290,221 BCE or after 294,161 CE can change the units and possibly the zero point.
Nonsense. It's perfectly possible to be both polite and clear.
If you can't say "fuck" people with poor vocabularies will just find a new way to convey the same sentiment.
Fixed that for you.
I'll grant that there are situations in which curse words are the only possible way to accurately express what needs to be said. I've personally encountered such situations. Twice. In 50 years of life. Swearing doesn't offend me -- if it ever did my years in the military would have beaten that out of me -- I just consider it evidence of inadequate command of the English language.
"White genocide" apparently is the White Supremacists' term for interracial sex. The logic being that if all white people have sex exclusively with non-white people, then nobody will be white any more.
Yes, except exclusivity is not required for "genocide". If a non-trivial percentage of whites are willing to mate with non-whites, and if there is no core of whites who exclusively mate with whites, then eventually there will be no pure whites.
That's the theory. Of course, it's all rather ridiculous. IMO we should all miscegenate away! With enough mixing the notion of racial identity will become difficult to maintain and remove this particular arbitrary division in humanity. Yes, I guess I'm a white traitor for believing such things. But, then, I'm 1/32nd Polynesian, plus some mixture of northern and southern European stock, so I'm already something of a mutt and why should I care about "white identity"?
You are quite literally manning the barricades on behalf of Robber Barons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jh4Mpgbi4A
When the humidity in a house gets above about 50%
This is Arizona. Unless it's actually raining humidity is almost never above 40%, and during the summer months 20% is more typical. If your house is too humid -- a problem I've never actually heard anyone in Arizona complain about -- just open some windows.
Did you even read my post? I said Google was wrong.
Cite?
Physics.
How does physics make it difficult for self-driving cars to spot wheelchairs and personal scooters? And how does physics cause the cars to often slam on the brakes?
It's wheelchairs and personal scooters that self driving cars have trouble spotting.
Cite?
Also those fucking cars slam on the brakes often can cause a lot of rear-end collisions.
Also, cite?
I have two monitors connected to my macbook.
I have an ethernet jack because I need to work from multiple VLANs.
I have a USB3 hub with an ergonomic keyboard, trackball and external drives.
I literally have every every port full on my 2015 MBP.
I have a desktop machine for all of that stuff. My laptop is a laptop, which means that it usually isn't plugged into anything -- not even power -- when i'm using it. I do keep a single adapter in my laptop bag, which gives me Ethernet, HDMI, SD and four USB-A ports, and I have a couple tiny USB-C to USB-A adapters as well. But I rarely have to use any of them.
So I don't mind the port situation on my new MBP at all... and I quite like the fact that I can plug power in from either side. I'm torn on the touch strip; it does make some stuff nicer. If it were more configurable, I'd actually like it.
The keyboard, however, seriously sucks. I haven't gotten around to turning in my old MBP yet, and so I occasionally pick it up to type something. Sooo much better to type on, though I prefer the new one for travel, just because it's thinner and lighter. The keyboard is so bad that if Apple doesn't fix it in the next iteration, I'm going switch when it's time to replace this one. I prefer Linux to OS X anyway.
I am guessing you are either in an Apple-centric shop where everything has been setup for you (AppleTVs on every TV/Projector, etc)
I don't know about the other guy, but I work for Google. VC and presentations are done with Hangouts, which makes it very easy to present wirelessly, and in fact doesn't really support a wired video input well.
you don't do anything that requires connectivity to other devices.
Not so much on my laptop. My desktop, however... I just counted and I have a total of 37 USB ports (10 on the machine, four on each of my three monitors, a 13-port hub on my desk and two on my keyboard). 22 of those 37 ports are in use. Oh, and both Ethernet ports are in use, as are three of the four DisplayPort sockets on my video card. No laptop in existence comes remotely close to having enough ports for me.
They really should have sensors to detect these conditions in places where large amounts of gas is used.
They did. iPhones.
...and down the street.
Look out for that bicyclist!
Self-driving cars are much better at seeing bicyclists than human drivers are. They look in all directions all the time, never get tired or distracted and can even see through some obstacles that block visible light.
Well, unless their collision avoidance systems are turned off. Human stupidity can defeat the best technology.
there has been no real improvement in batteries in more then 30 years
This is very wrong. 30 years ago NiCd was the best rechargeable battery technology on the market, soon to be replaced with the significantly-better NiMH. Li-ion batteries (early 90s) were a huge improvement over NiCd and NiMH in energy density, lack of "memory" and safety. We're still using them, but the details of the chemistries used and manufacturing processes have changed, resulting in steady but significant improvements year after year in energy density and cost. Li-ion energy densities today are 4X what they were when the first commercial cells hit the market.
According to the NYT, the Google wasn't obligated to pay him that money.
Sort of. By firing him they took away $150M in unvested stock that they'd given him just weeks before. Without an agreement he could have sued for that money, unless they could prove the termination was justified. I have no idea if he'd have gotten it, but he might have... and created a PR firestorm in the process. It's possible that the $90M payout saved Google money.
Come on, they paid somebody $90m to receive a bj. Call me a SJW if you want, but that's just plain stupidity on Google's part in my book. It encourages more BS.
That's a deep mischaracterization. Google had already given Rubin $150M in stock that vested over time. By firing him, they effectively took that stock away, opening themselves up to a lawsuit in which they'd have had to prove that they had cause for firing Rubin. It would have been a circus. So instead they gave him $90M (effectively taking back $60M) in exchange for which he agreed to go quietly.
I think they could and should have fired him with no parachute and dealt with the PR storm. But saying they paid him $90M to receive a BJ is ridiculous. It would be more accurate (though still not very) to say that they fined him $60M for it.
and if they really need it, why are they not paying full cost?
Because bringing internet to rural locations is not massively profitable and disproportionately expensive which often leads to for-profit private enterprise passing them over and giving them piss poor service. This does not, however, mean that these communities would not benefit from better internet connectivity and that they would not increase their contribution to society at large if society bit the bullet and built them an internet access even if it is a bit more expensive. This basically boil down to what people in 'flyover country' are complaining about: 'nobody gives a shit about us' ... and they have a point.
I live in the rural Mountain West, and currently pay $450 per month for my Internet service (dedicated point to point microwave link with an enterprise SLA). I stand to benefit enormously from government subsidies to bring fiber to homes like mine... but I'm not sure it really makes sense. The government initiatives for rural electrification and telephone made sense, because they brought important services to locations that otherwise wouldn't be served at all. But rural areas already do have Internet service, via WiMax, satellite, (slow) DSL and cellular service. It's not as good as "real" broadband, but neither are people in rural areas cut off. The web works just fine over these lesser services. Ping times are high, so online twitch gaming sucks.
why should rest of people subsidize them?
Why should we subsidise Oil companies? Coal companies? Arms companies? The Nuclear industry? Given the choice I'd rather subsidise farmers getting internet.
But farmers have Internet. And none of the farmers I know (and I know many) find their connections to be restrictive. Their kids grumble about ping times.
if there are benefits to the society at large from such subsidization, what are they?
Many, starting with rural kids having a powerful tool to educate themselves. When you are, for example, trying to understand how a sorting algorithm works one you tube video showing the algorithm at work can save you hours of pouring over books and mathematical formulas. In this regard there are nothing but benefits, even for adults
And rural kids can already do that.
It promotes tourism and industry in remote areas to have a proper internet connection since it makes device addicted wealthy urbanites more likely to go there
Meh. Except in locations so remote that the only option is satellite, it's already feasible to get "real" broadband, just expensive (like mine), and tourism industries can (and do) cover the cost without trouble. In truly remote locations, people understand that connectivity -- like everything else -- will be limited.
it enables farmers to process their produce into food products they can sell directly to the consumer
Um, what? How does faster Internet translate enable processing of produce? You're really reaching here.
... the list goes on.
But does it get any better? I doubt it. You were really stretching by the end there.
Internet connecting rural populations has all kinds of positive effects on rural areas.
Internet connection, yes. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about taking people from 3 mbps to 10 mbps (or higher).
In Scandinavia, Germany for example this has led to farmers and people in small villages begin able to rent out their empty rooms, apartments and houses to tourists on booking.com, airbnb.com, etc...
Umm, you can run a solid AirBnb operation with nothing more than a gig per month of cell data.
The well-off live primarily in suburbs, not rural areas. Wealthy suburbs are largely well-served with broadband because density is relatively high and they're able to pay well.
I use a 43" 4K TV which cost all of $300 because it can be run by any half decent graphics card and doesn't require multiple outs on the graphics card. It's equivalent to 4 1080p monitors.
When it comes to screens, it's more about pixels than size. An 8K monitor that's less than 30" is wasting a lot of pixels unless you have insanely go eyesight and like squinting.
No, once you have reasonable pixel density (dense enough that I can't see individual pixels from a range of 20" or so), it's all about size. Since my eyes have limited resolution, the only way to increase the amount of stuff I can have in my field of view at once (or in my field of view with only a head movement) is to increase the amount of that field of view that is covered with displays. This is why I have three monitors now.
VR will have you moving your head all over the place which is going to kill your neck in no time.
Nonsense. If this were true, the physical world would kill my neck [*]. Human necks are designed for looking around. Obviously I wouldn't want to place frequently-viewed materials above my head, and I would want to avoid placements that require me to make frequent repetitive neck motions, but it would be perfectly possible to design appropriate work layouts, just as I can lay out a bench of physical tools. Heck, given that I have a private office with a bit of room to move, I might even want to group virtual displays with distinct tasks in different parts of the room, so that I actually have to walk around a bit. Hmm. I'd need an easily-portable data entry device for that. VR gloves with good haptic feedback to make it seem like my keyboard follows me around? Dunno.
For all the time use, VR is not the best place to be. There are many reasons. For one, I'd hate to have to take it off every time someone comes in with a question.
Sufficiently-good AR would make removing it unnecessary. Though they might find it uncomfortable talking to you without being able to see your eyes. Unless they're using it, too.
You can do all of that in VR, they are called virtual desktops. You literally create them, zoom in/out/move wherever you want. AR is completely different and not required.
The second sentence of the comment you replied to:
Yes, I know all about virtual desktops. And, no, they don't solve my problem.
A free market is when willing sellers and willing buyers are prevented from doing business by middlemen with a monopoly position?
Well, Paypal and Stripe don't have a monopoly position. If the merchant acquiring banks start cutting Gab off from accepting credit card payments, then you would have a point.
The place I think I'd use VR is in the office. I currently have three largish monitors, a desktop environment with virtual desktops and layered windows... and I still don't have enough screen real estate. A VR headset with sufficiently-good movement tracking and resolution opens up the possibility of sitting in the center of most of a virtual sphere of high-resolution monitors -- ideally with some AR so that the monitors appear to be floating in my office, so I can see my office walls, my desk, keyboard, the cup of tea on the desk, etc., and interact with all of the physical stuff naturally while being able to see my virtual displays. The headset would also have to be light and comfortable enough for all-day wear. Bonus points if I can replace my office walls with a beach scene, etc., while still being able to see and use my desk.
I have done no investigation to see how far we are from making that possible. I suspect we're not there yet, even without the AR requirements.
"Just get the one with the driver in it, Achmed. The rest will stop and wait for us to unload them."
The lead vehicle will be an armored MRAP which doesn't bother hauling cargo, just lots of protection for the driver and response fire team. Oh, and a turret-mounted heavy machine gun or light autocannon.
Goog+ AUTOMATICALLY got linked to your G-Mail, YouTube, Goog Docs, everything.
This is because Google+ was actually two different things: A unified Google login and a social media network. I'm told that people at Google had been thinking about the idea of a single login to all Google products for a while, so when the social media thing got started, it became that single login, too. People (quite reasonably) misinterpreted it as an attempt to force them into using Google+, but it was really a separate thing. I think if the notion of a unified Google login had been pitched a year or two before the launch of Google+, people would have been fine with it. Combining it with Google+ certainly turned out to be a terrible idea.
Anyone who was even mildly curious about Goog+ dropped it like a toxic hotshit and never looked back.
Well, it still has about 500K regular users, so not everyone. Personally, I like Google+. It evolved to be more of an interest network than a social network, and that worked for me. Before Google+ I enjoyed USENET newsgroups focused on my interest, but they got buried in spam and most people drifted away. Google+ was an inferior replacement for USENET, but it was okay. I don't know what I'll replace Google+ with. Nothing, probably.
If they don't own the data, they at least need a license to use it.