Except it's not really e-reader or general purpose computing. More of a writer's tool. But it has absurd battery life on two AA batteries, and is quite nice for typing and doing simple spreadsheets. As long as you're happy with English and Japanese.
I really wish something like that but running a light weight Linux would be available. Console only would be perfectly fine for my needs.
Except they were not crammed into inflatables, so they did nothing of the kind. Inflatables can not be handled in a submerged cave with strong current. Doesn't even take an experienced cave diver to think that one through and see why.
And it was not anti-anxiety medication. It was sedation. The intent was not to reduce anxiety but to make panic impossible. Anxiety may be annoying to deal with, but panic kills.
I am aware. The sub was the best of his plans, and had the largest chance of success - which means it would require a lot of violence and hacking away of parts of the cave to work.
Cramming children into one of those inflatables would not be a good idea; panic is the absolutely largest risk in this kind of rescue. And even the dive instructor testing it found it hard to remain calm inside of it. Plus, as he states in your link, he is well aware of that there is a huge difference between open water diving and cave diving, and that he has no idea how well it would work in a cave.
And I can tell you right away it would not. The caves are very narrow and have strong current. The inflatable would be caught in the current and would be unmanageable.
That he was not convinced would succeed does not mean he thought it would fail. As I stated from the beginning, getting that sub through would require violence and a lot more hacking away of materials in the tunnels - which was highly undesirable for many reasons, yet better than sitting with no backup plan.
You're arguing against your own version of events, and not against what I - or Stanton - state happened. And you're sitting with 20/20 hindsight and arguing that Stanton should have wasted a lot more time on this backup plan which was a long shot, and only entertained because it was better than not having even a long shot backup plan.
So now you're blaming Stanton, who had his hands full with a rescue operation (which ended up successful), for replying "sure, whatever" instead of asking for detailed plans and information and spending precious time analyzing it.
You've never managed a project, just like you have never done a cave dive, that much is evident.
Stanton was busy doing his job, which was following the primary plan, and when Elon offered a backup plan, he wisely and correctly said "sure, keep at it", and then left it at that since he was busy. If you want to try to make that into some kind of deficiency on Stanton's part, you're on your own. He rescued the kids. If he had wasted his time and energy on other things than that goal, he very well might not have done so.
No need. Rick Stanton himself says he did not believe in the mini-sub idea. It was, from the start, an extreme long shot, and Stanton never saw dimensions of it before he said "sure, keep working on it", because they had no backup plan what so ever and a long shot he doesn't believe in is better than nothing.
It's funny how actual expertise is not only discounted, but ridiculed, in these kinds of discussions. And by funny, I mean small wonder the world is in the state it is, politically and otherwise.
Unsworth has not been in any media spotlight since the whole thing happened (I know of no interview with him made after July 18) and he has no other media presence, so where should he apologize?
And frankly, he was correct. That sub was an insane idea from the get go. Musk can try as he likes, but he won't get that sub in and then back out again without a lot of violence, and further clearing the path.
Yes, further clearing. They had to cut pieces of rock away to get a human without training past the worst sections. A pliable, soft, small human. That sub is a massive plug by comparison. That, and quite a lot of hours spent underwater in tight spaces, is how I know Unsworth was right.
Delphi is still in use. It's used for major application in the industrial and transportation sector. I work with it to create industrial GUI's and communication software.
It is better than ever, and is gaining very good cross platform capability.
There are some such tools, for specific applications. At least one of them is definitely worth using for simpler tasks specific to its domain, and that is NI's LabView.
But it's far from a general purpose tool. It's dead easy to whip up a feedback loop, or a simple state machine to manage a simple process, but if you're trying to manage an order flow from order to packing slip to invoice it will fall flat.
Giving up the "freedom" to be surrounded by desperate people, and having to arm oneself to get a false sense of security, is not actually a surrender of freedom. It's a gain in actual freedom, as it frees me to live my life as I please, without having to be on my guard against my fellow citizens.
It is really quite liberating. You should try it sometime!
So, who exactly defines these "human rights", and who decided they include the right to suffer violent death?
Because from where I sit, nothing is slipping away. I am free to live my life and express myself as I please, and I am also free from desperate people who are prepared to kill me for lunch money. Last time I was in the US that was not quite how it was there.
Generally, yes. Prisons in most Western countries are very safe. Among the safest places you can be.
But as with so many other things, the US is the exception. There is enormous amounts of violence in US society, and much of it is lethal, and that can be seen in prisons as well. And apparently this is a desired state of affairs, which to me is nothing short of insane.
The issue with guns isn't if someone is determined to kill you. As you note, once someone reaches that point (which is very difficult to reach), there isn't much that will stop them.
But when a gun is involved, there is no need to be determined to kill you. All it takes is a quick squeeze on a trigger. Something which is easy to do in anger, or accidentally, or just out of annoyance.
The point of gun legislation is not to get at the people who are determined to kill you no matter what. It's to get at the people who don't, but who with a gun might kill you anyway.
Thank you for the observations. Will have to keep an eye on the developments in the ARM machine space, it seems.
I've run full Linux DE on a RaPi, and it's not that smooth an experience. A light weight distro like Kali or Arch with OpenBox will be pretty snappy, until the IO starts limiting things.
RISC for Pi is an interesting idea, and remarkably snappy, but again, the IO gets in the way of a lot of things. Would be interesting to see nice AMD laptops which could run it.
Is that true even with a light Linux distro? I am curious, there isn't much information available other than on platforms like the RaPi which have bad IO congestion holding them back.
It would seem to me that an ARM machine which does not have that problem, and which has a fast storage solution (decent SSD) should perform pretty well without the Windows overhead, but I don't know, so would love to learn.
No, I am not telling you the companies are worth the same. They're not.
They are both worth whatever someone wants to pay for them. No more, no less. And that is not in any way, shape or form dependent on their assets, but only on what someone wants to pay.
I know basic financial analysis. That is unrelated to my point. You can't see past basic analysis, and think that such analysis indicates something objective. It doesn't. The only reason following analysis works is because others follow analysis.
It's highly ironic that you tell me to grow up, when you're the one stuck in your imagination.
And you still haven't provided an objective connection between stock price and company assets. Spoiler; you can't, because there is none.
You can't provide this objective value, or measure it, or even explain it. All you can do is claim it exists.
What really exists is that which is there whether we believe in it or not. And objective value to a company's stock does not exist if we do not believe in it.
You have burst nothing. All you keep doing is putting forth your delusions as fact, but you can not support them.
The stock market is a place where people try to figure out how other people want to invest.
That's IT. There is no connection between company performance and what someone is willing to pay for a stock. The only connection is what people expect other people to be prepared to pay for the stock in the future.
If there is profit or loss doesn't in itself matter. Yes, a lot of people will use that as indicators for buying or selling, but that is up to them; it is no law of nature.
Which means you were feeding the cycle of investors following the markers.
Again, there is no law of nature behind this. No inherent good in following the markers. The only reason people are following the markers is because they expect that others will be following the markers. And that is why your software was working. Because it predicted the markers that other people were trying to predict and follow.
That does not mean following the markers has objective value. All it means is that other investors will reason the same way.
That is ALL it means.
You've drank the Kool-Aid, and consider these subjective markers to be denoting some kind of objective value on the stock. They do not. They denote what other investors are likely to look for, that is all they are. Predictors of how others will behave.
It will be as much raw gambling as it is now. Warren Buffett makes his money on stock buyers following the markers, not on any kind of law of nature or inherent value in the stocks. Ironically, people follow the markers mainly because people like him do.
You're consistently missing the point. Companies do not affect the stock value of the company by doing all those things. What they affect is the will of the stock buyers to pay. Nothing else. There is NO inherent value in a stock based on the company state. None what so ever. And people are waking up to that.
And, well, you do not understand if you call it "gamble", so you do not understand. But from your crude language at the start of this, I already knew that.
Slashdot Mirror
What economics needs is resources that have to be managed. Then you have economics.
The King Jim Pomera DM100 is pretty much that.
http://pomeradm100guide.com/
Except it's not really e-reader or general purpose computing. More of a writer's tool. But it has absurd battery life on two AA batteries, and is quite nice for typing and doing simple spreadsheets. As long as you're happy with English and Japanese.
I really wish something like that but running a light weight Linux would be available. Console only would be perfectly fine for my needs.
Except they were not crammed into inflatables, so they did nothing of the kind. Inflatables can not be handled in a submerged cave with strong current. Doesn't even take an experienced cave diver to think that one through and see why.
And it was not anti-anxiety medication. It was sedation. The intent was not to reduce anxiety but to make panic impossible. Anxiety may be annoying to deal with, but panic kills.
I am aware. The sub was the best of his plans, and had the largest chance of success - which means it would require a lot of violence and hacking away of parts of the cave to work.
Cramming children into one of those inflatables would not be a good idea; panic is the absolutely largest risk in this kind of rescue. And even the dive instructor testing it found it hard to remain calm inside of it. Plus, as he states in your link, he is well aware of that there is a huge difference between open water diving and cave diving, and that he has no idea how well it would work in a cave.
And I can tell you right away it would not. The caves are very narrow and have strong current. The inflatable would be caught in the current and would be unmanageable.
That he was not convinced would succeed does not mean he thought it would fail. As I stated from the beginning, getting that sub through would require violence and a lot more hacking away of materials in the tunnels - which was highly undesirable for many reasons, yet better than sitting with no backup plan.
You're arguing against your own version of events, and not against what I - or Stanton - state happened. And you're sitting with 20/20 hindsight and arguing that Stanton should have wasted a lot more time on this backup plan which was a long shot, and only entertained because it was better than not having even a long shot backup plan.
So now you're blaming Stanton, who had his hands full with a rescue operation (which ended up successful), for replying "sure, whatever" instead of asking for detailed plans and information and spending precious time analyzing it.
You've never managed a project, just like you have never done a cave dive, that much is evident.
Stanton was busy doing his job, which was following the primary plan, and when Elon offered a backup plan, he wisely and correctly said "sure, keep at it", and then left it at that since he was busy. If you want to try to make that into some kind of deficiency on Stanton's part, you're on your own. He rescued the kids. If he had wasted his time and energy on other things than that goal, he very well might not have done so.
No need. Rick Stanton himself says he did not believe in the mini-sub idea. It was, from the start, an extreme long shot, and Stanton never saw dimensions of it before he said "sure, keep working on it", because they had no backup plan what so ever and a long shot he doesn't believe in is better than nothing.
https://www.coventrytelegraph....
It's funny how actual expertise is not only discounted, but ridiculed, in these kinds of discussions. And by funny, I mean small wonder the world is in the state it is, politically and otherwise.
Unsworth has not been in any media spotlight since the whole thing happened (I know of no interview with him made after July 18) and he has no other media presence, so where should he apologize?
And frankly, he was correct. That sub was an insane idea from the get go. Musk can try as he likes, but he won't get that sub in and then back out again without a lot of violence, and further clearing the path.
Yes, further clearing. They had to cut pieces of rock away to get a human without training past the worst sections. A pliable, soft, small human. That sub is a massive plug by comparison. That, and quite a lot of hours spent underwater in tight spaces, is how I know Unsworth was right.
Delphi is still in use. It's used for major application in the industrial and transportation sector. I work with it to create industrial GUI's and communication software.
It is better than ever, and is gaining very good cross platform capability.
There are some such tools, for specific applications. At least one of them is definitely worth using for simpler tasks specific to its domain, and that is NI's LabView.
But it's far from a general purpose tool. It's dead easy to whip up a feedback loop, or a simple state machine to manage a simple process, but if you're trying to manage an order flow from order to packing slip to invoice it will fall flat.
Which is why I do not give that up.
Giving up the "freedom" to be surrounded by desperate people, and having to arm oneself to get a false sense of security, is not actually a surrender of freedom. It's a gain in actual freedom, as it frees me to live my life as I please, without having to be on my guard against my fellow citizens.
It is really quite liberating. You should try it sometime!
So, who exactly defines these "human rights", and who decided they include the right to suffer violent death?
Because from where I sit, nothing is slipping away. I am free to live my life and express myself as I please, and I am also free from desperate people who are prepared to kill me for lunch money. Last time I was in the US that was not quite how it was there.
Generally, yes. Prisons in most Western countries are very safe. Among the safest places you can be.
But as with so many other things, the US is the exception. There is enormous amounts of violence in US society, and much of it is lethal, and that can be seen in prisons as well. And apparently this is a desired state of affairs, which to me is nothing short of insane.
Yet I have both.
Funny how that works.
Looking at statistics on death from violence, "Freedom" means "Freedom to be killed violently".
I'll give that up in a heartbeat.
The issue with guns isn't if someone is determined to kill you. As you note, once someone reaches that point (which is very difficult to reach), there isn't much that will stop them.
But when a gun is involved, there is no need to be determined to kill you. All it takes is a quick squeeze on a trigger. Something which is easy to do in anger, or accidentally, or just out of annoyance.
The point of gun legislation is not to get at the people who are determined to kill you no matter what. It's to get at the people who don't, but who with a gun might kill you anyway.
Thank you for the observations. Will have to keep an eye on the developments in the ARM machine space, it seems.
I've run full Linux DE on a RaPi, and it's not that smooth an experience. A light weight distro like Kali or Arch with OpenBox will be pretty snappy, until the IO starts limiting things.
RISC for Pi is an interesting idea, and remarkably snappy, but again, the IO gets in the way of a lot of things. Would be interesting to see nice AMD laptops which could run it.
But now I am rambling. =)
Is that true even with a light Linux distro? I am curious, there isn't much information available other than on platforms like the RaPi which have bad IO congestion holding them back.
It would seem to me that an ARM machine which does not have that problem, and which has a fast storage solution (decent SSD) should perform pretty well without the Windows overhead, but I don't know, so would love to learn.
So, what besides investor sentiment is it down to, Mr. Foulmouth?
I assume all the swearing is because I'm right.
No, I am not telling you the companies are worth the same. They're not.
They are both worth whatever someone wants to pay for them. No more, no less. And that is not in any way, shape or form dependent on their assets, but only on what someone wants to pay.
I know basic financial analysis. That is unrelated to my point. You can't see past basic analysis, and think that such analysis indicates something objective. It doesn't. The only reason following analysis works is because others follow analysis.
It's highly ironic that you tell me to grow up, when you're the one stuck in your imagination.
And you still haven't provided an objective connection between stock price and company assets. Spoiler; you can't, because there is none.
You can't provide this objective value, or measure it, or even explain it. All you can do is claim it exists.
What really exists is that which is there whether we believe in it or not. And objective value to a company's stock does not exist if we do not believe in it.
You have burst nothing. All you keep doing is putting forth your delusions as fact, but you can not support them.
The stock market is no such thing.
The stock market is a place where people try to figure out how other people want to invest.
That's IT. There is no connection between company performance and what someone is willing to pay for a stock. The only connection is what people expect other people to be prepared to pay for the stock in the future.
If there is profit or loss doesn't in itself matter. Yes, a lot of people will use that as indicators for buying or selling, but that is up to them; it is no law of nature.
Which means you were feeding the cycle of investors following the markers.
Again, there is no law of nature behind this. No inherent good in following the markers. The only reason people are following the markers is because they expect that others will be following the markers. And that is why your software was working. Because it predicted the markers that other people were trying to predict and follow.
That does not mean following the markers has objective value. All it means is that other investors will reason the same way.
That is ALL it means.
You've drank the Kool-Aid, and consider these subjective markers to be denoting some kind of objective value on the stock. They do not. They denote what other investors are likely to look for, that is all they are. Predictors of how others will behave.
So riddle me this then; why is the stock value not tied to any of that, but worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it?
I do not think none of that matters. I know none of that matters. And you can not show me how it does.
It will be as much raw gambling as it is now. Warren Buffett makes his money on stock buyers following the markers, not on any kind of law of nature or inherent value in the stocks. Ironically, people follow the markers mainly because people like him do.
You're consistently missing the point. Companies do not affect the stock value of the company by doing all those things. What they affect is the will of the stock buyers to pay. Nothing else. There is NO inherent value in a stock based on the company state. None what so ever. And people are waking up to that.
And, well, you do not understand if you call it "gamble", so you do not understand. But from your crude language at the start of this, I already knew that.