It looks like every world cup but perhaps a couple has had a different stitch pattern on the ball.
No, it doesn't. They were all somewhat different up until the Telstar introduced the 32-panel, pentagon-and-hexagon stitching pattern, but it appears to me that remained unchanged for almost 40 years, from 1970 to 2006. The balls in between appear to have the same stitching pattern, just different printed designs.
I dunno.. my LEAF's maintenance schedule for the first 150K miles is pretty much "rotate tires, every 7500 miles, check brakes every 15,000". Checking the brakes, of course, involves checking the brake fluid levels, so there is a fluid. At 150K miles you do have to replace the oil used to cool the battery charger.
But, in general, EVs are very close to maintenance-free.
It amazes me that this needs to be pointed out. Using a deity's name in a secular and preferably angry context is one of the fundaments of swearing, by deus.
And one that is generally frowned upon by religious people. The names are essentially anti-religious, not religious, in nature.
other particles we find similar to it could be given normal names like UHE particles, or super high energy rays but that doesnt secure grant funding in the theocratic Mormon state of Utah.
If the state of Utah is theocratic and makes funding decisions based on particle names, choosing blasphemous ones is not the path to big research bucks. Mormons take the prohibition against taking the name of deity in vain pretty seriously.
Most companies want degrees OR equivalent work experience.
Most, maybe. But there are a substantial number that do demand a degree, and the non-degreed will always have at least a small handicap, because given two otherwise equivalent candidates, the one with the degree is likely to get the job, and after 10 years or so the extra four years of experience aren't going to mean as much as the formal education.
In addition, if at some point in your career you want to move into another career track the degree may well become even more important -- though the choice of major may become much less important.
They do comply with OBDII. Some of the bits are different, obviously. I have an OBDII scanner I use regularly with my LEAF. It extends the spec to allow reporting on some EV-only parameters, such as the state of each of the hundreds of cells in the battery, but it also reports lots of the same data reported by an ICE.
...ever put in that car insurance fob into your auto's computer port? (e.g. Progressive's Snapshot, where they treat it as a cute little device that aggressively records everything your car is doing when you drive.
Very interesting... thanks for the link, I just signed up. I did find it interesting that my 2004 Durango is compatible with their device, but my 2013 LEAF is not.
Being a good programmer is orthogonal with being a good manager
I strongly disagree, assuming by "manager" we mean "team leader" rather than "HR manager".
Being an outstanding lone wolf programmer is of value, but significant projects are almost never single-person efforts. Real top programmers also have to be able to lead people.
... If somebody learns every detail of the motions I make when I brush my teeth...
While your comment sounds like over-the-top sarcasm, keep in mind the time when you go to the dentist and your dental insurance company refuses to pay their portion of the bill because you have not been brushing your teeth properly....
There are two sides to that. How would you like an option to buy dental insurance that is dramatically cheaper, but which you can only get if you allow your brushing habits to be monitored and corrected? I think there's value in allowing people who choose to manage their risks well to be able to benefit from the reduced costs. For such a policy it would be important that you find out that your brushing is substandard before you go to the dentist, though, not after. It shouldn't be a surprise.
We do need to draw a line that prevents preferential treatment based on characteristics which are not within the control of the individual, including past behaviors, but I see no problem and lots of advantages in enabling the use of pricing to encourage behavior that reduces costs.
The final end result of mass mechanized production is that the available workers will far outnumber the available jobs
That assumption is not borne out by history. If it were true, we should already have arrived at that point long ago, since it used to be that 95-98% of human labor was dedicated to agriculture, and the number is more like 2% today. How is it that anyone has work to do? We dramatically expanded some jobs and invented lots of new ones, many of which would be utterly baffling or even ludicrous to farmers of a few centuries ago. What will people do in the future to add value? If I knew that, I could undoubtedly make several fortunes. But what I do know is that they'll do something. Perhaps the economy will mostly be service-based, driven by peoples' desire to be served by people rather than machines. Perhaps much of it will be highly-specialized, custom-tailored creative manufacturing, producing one-off, hand-made items. Maybe a lot of it will be creative or artistic, a world of painters, storytellers, etc. Maybe it will mostly be about designing and rushing to market the next mass-produced faddish gewgaw (this seems very likely to me). Some of it will definitely be around the design, care and feeding of the robots, even if much of that work becomes robot-assisted.
What I do know is that as long as there are people there will be something person A wants from person B and vice versa, and with that basis for trade there will be an economy, and something akin to jobs.
this is the problem that communism was intended to solve.
That's revisionist history, ludicrously so. Marx never foresaw anything of the sort. He believed firmly in the labor theory of value, and as such all economic power derived from human labor, not from mechanical power. Communism was about combating the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few people who owned the means of production, at the expense of the masses who provided the labor (and hence the real value).
His view was misguided in many ways, not least in that it almost completely ignores the value of intellectual work; the guy who figures out the right way to apply labor to raw materials is fantastically more effective than the one who does it the wrong way, and in fact this applies at all levels of the chain, up to and including the allocation of capital. Communism is inherently horrible at effectively allocating resources since it lacks the price signals that bundle cost and relative value and communicate them in a way that enables efficient allocation of resources to maximize what people collectively perceive as good, which is why communist economies always fail, and will always fail, even in the presence of automated systems that produce and distribute all of the essentials of life to everyone equally, even if said essentials include what we'd call luxuries. Those essentials will become the baseline expectation, much like oxygen, and economic competition will be around something else.
I'd say it's actually a little more complex than that. It depends not just on the source server but on every point between the source server and your machine. In the case of the Netflix/Comcast spat a while ago, for example, the problem wasn't Comcast's network, or Netflix, or the network between them, but Comcast's connection to the network between them -- so it was Comcast's fault, but not in a way that would show up with connections to other servers that took a different path.
And regardless of whether or not *you* blame YouTube when it's slow, many users do, which is why Google is doing this.
When I cannot get downloads a MB/sec rates, I generally blame the server at the other end and not my broadband provider.
When the server at the other end is YouTube, it's not the server at the other end. Google has enormous capacity, both computing and bandwidth, and is extensively peered. But people do tend to blame the server, which is why Google is trying to make clear that it's not YouTube that's sucking when you have problems watching videos.
Better make it "No Cameras Allowed". Which, incidentally, also means "No Smartphones or Tablets Allowed", since they all have cameras... which would actually eliminate the risk of passwords being stolen as they're entered into a smartphone or tablet, since no smartphones or tablets are allowed. Problem solved!
Shut up, glasshole.
Jealous, much? Actually, I don't have Google Glass... but I'm hoping to get one for Christmas this year. Neener neener!
Considering all mobile phones had removable batteries until the past five years, it is a sneaky ploy. It'd be like buying a car that doesn't have a hood. Even if they don't explicitly say that you can service it, it is something that people expect.
The first really successful smartphone -- the iPhone, released in 2007 -- has never had removable batteries. In fact, since I got my first smartphone, about five years ago, I've only had one that did have removable batteries (Galaxy Nexus), and I never found it a particularly useful feature. I did buy an extra battery but swapping batteries frequently is inconsistent with keeping a good case on it, so after breaking a phone I found it was better to just charge it whenever I was near a charger. My Moto X doesn't have a removable battery.
Better make it "No Cameras Allowed". Which, incidentally, also means "No Smartphones or Tablets Allowed", since they all have cameras... which would actually eliminate the risk of passwords being stolen as they're entered into a smartphone or tablet, since no smartphones or tablets are allowed. Problem solved!
Slashdot Mirror
"At 150K miles you do have to replace the oil used to cool the battery charger."
Why? In a traditional car, the oil looses its ability to lubricate. What exactly does the oil in a battery charger do after 150K?
No idea.
It looks like every world cup but perhaps a couple has had a different stitch pattern on the ball.
No, it doesn't. They were all somewhat different up until the Telstar introduced the 32-panel, pentagon-and-hexagon stitching pattern, but it appears to me that remained unchanged for almost 40 years, from 1970 to 2006. The balls in between appear to have the same stitching pattern, just different printed designs.
I dunno.. my LEAF's maintenance schedule for the first 150K miles is pretty much "rotate tires, every 7500 miles, check brakes every 15,000". Checking the brakes, of course, involves checking the brake fluid levels, so there is a fluid. At 150K miles you do have to replace the oil used to cool the battery charger.
But, in general, EVs are very close to maintenance-free.
Earth is 12,742 km in diameter. The moon is 363,104 km, 28.5 diameters, away at perigee, and 405,696 km, 31.8 diameters, at apogee.
In round numbers the moon is 30 Earth diameters away.
I'd be more inclined to trust the article if they hadn't claimed the moon is 40 earth diameters away from the earth...
Meh. A simple error in the writeup, which I'm sure is not present in the scientific papers.
http://lunarscience.nasa.gov/?question=3318
Eating people alive? Where's that get fun?
The screams... it's all about the screams. And dinner. Think of it as the psychotic version of dine-in movie theaters.
We need to make them stop polluting out galaxy!
We must put an end to these dirty dirty aliens once and for all! Who's with me!
Bring your pitchforks!
I got my pitchfork right here. Let's go!
How are we going to get there, again?
It amazes me that this needs to be pointed out. Using a deity's name in a secular and preferably angry context is one of the fundaments of swearing, by deus.
And one that is generally frowned upon by religious people. The names are essentially anti-religious, not religious, in nature.
other particles we find similar to it could be given normal names like UHE particles, or super high energy rays but that doesnt secure grant funding in the theocratic Mormon state of Utah.
If the state of Utah is theocratic and makes funding decisions based on particle names, choosing blasphemous ones is not the path to big research bucks. Mormons take the prohibition against taking the name of deity in vain pretty seriously.
I mean, the smallpox was there, why not the plutonium?
try that defense if you ever get charged with murder.
The mistake I was referring to was smallpox's occasional error in failing to leave a few survivors.
Most companies want degrees OR equivalent work experience.
Most, maybe. But there are a substantial number that do demand a degree, and the non-degreed will always have at least a small handicap, because given two otherwise equivalent candidates, the one with the degree is likely to get the job, and after 10 years or so the extra four years of experience aren't going to mean as much as the formal education.
In addition, if at some point in your career you want to move into another career track the degree may well become even more important -- though the choice of major may become much less important.
Well, everyone makes mistakes once in a while.
They do comply with OBDII. Some of the bits are different, obviously. I have an OBDII scanner I use regularly with my LEAF. It extends the spec to allow reporting on some EV-only parameters, such as the state of each of the hundreds of cells in the battery, but it also reports lots of the same data reported by an ICE.
Whore yourself out much??????
Never. Why?
...ever put in that car insurance fob into your auto's computer port? (e.g. Progressive's Snapshot, where they treat it as a cute little device that aggressively records everything your car is doing when you drive.
Very interesting... thanks for the link, I just signed up. I did find it interesting that my 2004 Durango is compatible with their device, but my 2013 LEAF is not.
Being a good programmer is orthogonal with being a good manager
I strongly disagree, assuming by "manager" we mean "team leader" rather than "HR manager".
Being an outstanding lone wolf programmer is of value, but significant projects are almost never single-person efforts. Real top programmers also have to be able to lead people.
... If somebody learns every detail of the motions I make when I brush my teeth...
While your comment sounds like over-the-top sarcasm, keep in mind the time when you go to the dentist and your dental insurance company refuses to pay their portion of the bill because you have not been brushing your teeth properly....
There are two sides to that. How would you like an option to buy dental insurance that is dramatically cheaper, but which you can only get if you allow your brushing habits to be monitored and corrected? I think there's value in allowing people who choose to manage their risks well to be able to benefit from the reduced costs. For such a policy it would be important that you find out that your brushing is substandard before you go to the dentist, though, not after. It shouldn't be a surprise.
We do need to draw a line that prevents preferential treatment based on characteristics which are not within the control of the individual, including past behaviors, but I see no problem and lots of advantages in enabling the use of pricing to encourage behavior that reduces costs.
And no one is surprised that you're jealous, like all those who use the term "glasshole".
The final end result of mass mechanized production is that the available workers will far outnumber the available jobs
That assumption is not borne out by history. If it were true, we should already have arrived at that point long ago, since it used to be that 95-98% of human labor was dedicated to agriculture, and the number is more like 2% today. How is it that anyone has work to do? We dramatically expanded some jobs and invented lots of new ones, many of which would be utterly baffling or even ludicrous to farmers of a few centuries ago. What will people do in the future to add value? If I knew that, I could undoubtedly make several fortunes. But what I do know is that they'll do something. Perhaps the economy will mostly be service-based, driven by peoples' desire to be served by people rather than machines. Perhaps much of it will be highly-specialized, custom-tailored creative manufacturing, producing one-off, hand-made items. Maybe a lot of it will be creative or artistic, a world of painters, storytellers, etc. Maybe it will mostly be about designing and rushing to market the next mass-produced faddish gewgaw (this seems very likely to me). Some of it will definitely be around the design, care and feeding of the robots, even if much of that work becomes robot-assisted.
What I do know is that as long as there are people there will be something person A wants from person B and vice versa, and with that basis for trade there will be an economy, and something akin to jobs.
this is the problem that communism was intended to solve.
That's revisionist history, ludicrously so. Marx never foresaw anything of the sort. He believed firmly in the labor theory of value, and as such all economic power derived from human labor, not from mechanical power. Communism was about combating the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few people who owned the means of production, at the expense of the masses who provided the labor (and hence the real value).
His view was misguided in many ways, not least in that it almost completely ignores the value of intellectual work; the guy who figures out the right way to apply labor to raw materials is fantastically more effective than the one who does it the wrong way, and in fact this applies at all levels of the chain, up to and including the allocation of capital. Communism is inherently horrible at effectively allocating resources since it lacks the price signals that bundle cost and relative value and communicate them in a way that enables efficient allocation of resources to maximize what people collectively perceive as good, which is why communist economies always fail, and will always fail, even in the presence of automated systems that produce and distribute all of the essentials of life to everyone equally, even if said essentials include what we'd call luxuries. Those essentials will become the baseline expectation, much like oxygen, and economic competition will be around something else.
I'd say it's actually a little more complex than that. It depends not just on the source server but on every point between the source server and your machine. In the case of the Netflix/Comcast spat a while ago, for example, the problem wasn't Comcast's network, or Netflix, or the network between them, but Comcast's connection to the network between them -- so it was Comcast's fault, but not in a way that would show up with connections to other servers that took a different path.
And regardless of whether or not *you* blame YouTube when it's slow, many users do, which is why Google is doing this.
When I cannot get downloads a MB/sec rates, I generally blame the server at the other end and not my broadband provider.
When the server at the other end is YouTube, it's not the server at the other end. Google has enormous capacity, both computing and bandwidth, and is extensively peered. But people do tend to blame the server, which is why Google is trying to make clear that it's not YouTube that's sucking when you have problems watching videos.
Better make it "No Cameras Allowed". Which, incidentally, also means "No Smartphones or Tablets Allowed", since they all have cameras... which would actually eliminate the risk of passwords being stolen as they're entered into a smartphone or tablet, since no smartphones or tablets are allowed. Problem solved!
Shut up, glasshole.
Jealous, much? Actually, I don't have Google Glass... but I'm hoping to get one for Christmas this year. Neener neener!
Considering all mobile phones had removable batteries until the past five years, it is a sneaky ploy. It'd be like buying a car that doesn't have a hood. Even if they don't explicitly say that you can service it, it is something that people expect.
The first really successful smartphone -- the iPhone, released in 2007 -- has never had removable batteries. In fact, since I got my first smartphone, about five years ago, I've only had one that did have removable batteries (Galaxy Nexus), and I never found it a particularly useful feature. I did buy an extra battery but swapping batteries frequently is inconsistent with keeping a good case on it, so after breaking a phone I found it was better to just charge it whenever I was near a charger. My Moto X doesn't have a removable battery.
Time to trademark a 'No Glass Allowed' symbol.
Better make it "No Cameras Allowed". Which, incidentally, also means "No Smartphones or Tablets Allowed", since they all have cameras... which would actually eliminate the risk of passwords being stolen as they're entered into a smartphone or tablet, since no smartphones or tablets are allowed. Problem solved!