So, texting should require and tags? How do you know when someone is done driving? Can you text them again 5 minutes later? 20 minutes? Are you liable for any texts you send them until they send a "I am not driving" text?. In theory they don't expect you to have ESP, but in practice...
Other scenarios that are no more stupid than texting-a-driver-is-illegal. 1) A text makes someone not pull out on time. The texter now owes child support. 2) A text causes someone to forget to clarify no mayo on their double bacon burger. The texter must now pay for liposuction. 3) A text distracts someone from their last minute bid on eBay. Texter must now provide that limited edition, gold plated John Lennon semen. 4) A text distracts an AC for precious seconds, making their First Post the fifth or sixth one down. Ok, this one would have no noticeable effect.
It does seem like we're trying to shift the blame. The driver does not have to read the text or answer the phone. In fact, the driver can easily disable the wireless on their phone while driving or take other steps so that they won't even know someone is trying to reach them. Plenty of people can argue that they NEED to know if someone is calling them, but let's be realistic: of all of the drivers on the road with cell phones, how many actually NEED to know about a text/call the very moment it happens? A majority of drives are only a few miles (less than 20 or 30 minutes) anyway - what information does Joe Average need to expect on a regular basis that can't wait 20 minutes?
One issue I have with text records is that my phone will keep trying to send the message until it gets signal. So I can type and hit Send while still in a convenience store, but it might not actually send until I'm 30 miles down the road to an area with better reception. I would presume that records would show when it was actually sent, not when it was typed out. Given that most areas of the country have spotty reception due to even small topographic features or because people use Sprint, it's a less unlikely scenario than it might seem.
The radio station I listen to has kind of sort of begun to acknowledge people listen to morning radio mostly during commute. Instead of "call in at 555-5555 or text to #" it's now "call in at 555-555 or text if you're not moving to #"
The end result is probably nothing more than the DJs feeling like they can sleep a little better at night.
And the Crusades never happened? The Inquisition? etc, etc. Christians as a whole, and many sects in particular, follow more than just the Bible as part of their religion.
Jews would fall under the "killing others" part of that statement more than the "converting" part, especially if you look at all of history and not just the last few hundred years. Not sure if that makes them better or worse.
Putting it in terms relative to the speed of light does help a lot. It won't make a huge difference to most casual readers, but anyone who knows that the Earth is roughly 8 lightminutes away from the sun (fairly common knowledge) can easily use the.11c to figure out exactly how fast it is in a meaningful way. Using mph/kph isn't meaningful to most readers because it's on such a different scale from anything else we'd normally measure in mph/kph.
"Actually the flaw is yours. Did the fact that not all members of the Nazi party were fully committed to "the cause" make that group any less dangerous? No, it did not."
But it did mean that we didn't prosecute all Nazis for war crimes just because they were Nazis.
Also, newsflash, many major religions support the cause of converting others or killing them. Including Christians and Jews. A clear majority of Muslims think that's an outdated concept just as much as Christians and Jews do too. It's just some relatively tiny sects that still support it (see Westboro Baptist Church).
A surprising number of apps in the android store are little more than a collection of static pages, with the odd calculator or flashcard functionality thrown in. Stuff that should be fairly easy for a GUI based editor to handle. So the end result is that this is just making it easier for Windows to have more apps like those already available on other platforms.
Check out the bulk of Android apps... most of them could be made by a monkey flinging poop at a keyboard. It's not aimed at people looking to make The Next Big Thing.
You can make a pretty usable website using only WYSIWYG editors, so why not an app? The two really aren't that different considering they're both aimed at the casual/amateur market.
It's not about efficiency, it's about ease of use. A massive number of apps out there are little more complex than the flashcards or calculator programming exercises used in every Programming 101 class. It's not designed to completely replace coding or be more efficient; it's designed as a way for inexperienced people to develop simple apps, which in turn inflates the number of apps available on Windows.
Slashdot is not the intended userbase for a program like this. The intended userbase is teachers that want to throw together a study guide app, kids that want to make an app for their club, moms that want to release a Family Newsletter app.
It's not really a contradiction, it's just adding a layer between the dev and the actual code. Think WYSIWYG web editors that have been around forever. You're still building a website, it's just showing the computer what you want and letting it generate the actual code. It's really not a lot different than coding in C# and then having it compiled into binary... you're just creating the program at a level even further away from what the computer will actually run. Of course, like the WYSIWYG web editors, the code will almost certainly be sloppy and inefficient compared to coding it yourself, but it opens up the market for basic apps to people that otherwise couldn't/wouldn't make them.
My post makes a few points, but I don't see the conflict. 1) Rocket tech hasn't changed much. This, we agreed on. 2) It was practical to do it that way on the moon in 1969. 3) It has not been practical to do it on Earth up to this point. 4) The main difference in practicality between Earth and the moon has to do with atmosphere (or lack thereof) and gravity.
Don't confuse practical with possible. I never said we couldn't do it on Earth, just that we've had better ways due to the slow evolution of rocket technology and that might finally be changing.
Are we talking 25 degrees off an axis perpendicular to the ground or parallel to the ground? Because the former is still close enough to the perpendicular to be considered pointing "mostly down" rather than "mostly sideways" or, if NASA copies my Kerbal designs, "mostly up, no over, no down, no up again".
The moon has considerably less gravity and atmosphere to worry about for VTOL. So if it's practical on the moon in 1969, it's reasonable it would take the better part of a century to become practical on Earth given that rocket technology hasn't changed that drastically since the Nazis were launching V-2s (or depending on how you define drastically, since the Chinese were launching emperors, see Wan Hu).
Ok, SSDs give much better performance. I never disputed that. However, the performance still isn't worth to price to a lot of people. It's the same reason some people will buy a car with a 1.6L engine and others will buy the same car with the 2.0L engine. It's not that the 1.6L people don't value the extra power of the 2.0L, it's that they don't want to pay more for it.
I never said it was an obstacle at all. If you read the post it was replying to, I was saying the big empty is the perfect place for tracks. The poster I was replying to seemed to think rail would only go between suburbs and cities, not across the empty spaces between cities.
I was referring to the geography of the country, which should be obvious from talking about fields and deserts. As in, thousands of miles across with most of those miles having very few people. So yes, it's very comparable to China or Russia. Or Canada. Or Australia. Or Brazil
Slashdot Mirror
So, texting should require and tags? How do you know when someone is done driving? Can you text them again 5 minutes later? 20 minutes? Are you liable for any texts you send them until they send a "I am not driving" text?. In theory they don't expect you to have ESP, but in practice...
Other scenarios that are no more stupid than texting-a-driver-is-illegal.
1) A text makes someone not pull out on time. The texter now owes child support.
2) A text causes someone to forget to clarify no mayo on their double bacon burger. The texter must now pay for liposuction.
3) A text distracts someone from their last minute bid on eBay. Texter must now provide that limited edition, gold plated John Lennon semen.
4) A text distracts an AC for precious seconds, making their First Post the fifth or sixth one down. Ok, this one would have no noticeable effect.
It does seem like we're trying to shift the blame. The driver does not have to read the text or answer the phone. In fact, the driver can easily disable the wireless on their phone while driving or take other steps so that they won't even know someone is trying to reach them. Plenty of people can argue that they NEED to know if someone is calling them, but let's be realistic: of all of the drivers on the road with cell phones, how many actually NEED to know about a text/call the very moment it happens? A majority of drives are only a few miles (less than 20 or 30 minutes) anyway - what information does Joe Average need to expect on a regular basis that can't wait 20 minutes?
One issue I have with text records is that my phone will keep trying to send the message until it gets signal. So I can type and hit Send while still in a convenience store, but it might not actually send until I'm 30 miles down the road to an area with better reception. I would presume that records would show when it was actually sent, not when it was typed out. Given that most areas of the country have spotty reception due to even small topographic features or because people use Sprint, it's a less unlikely scenario than it might seem.
The radio station I listen to has kind of sort of begun to acknowledge people listen to morning radio mostly during commute. Instead of "call in at 555-5555 or text to #" it's now "call in at 555-555 or text if you're not moving to #"
The end result is probably nothing more than the DJs feeling like they can sleep a little better at night.
And the Crusades never happened? The Inquisition? etc, etc. Christians as a whole, and many sects in particular, follow more than just the Bible as part of their religion.
Jews would fall under the "killing others" part of that statement more than the "converting" part, especially if you look at all of history and not just the last few hundred years. Not sure if that makes them better or worse.
Putting it in terms relative to the speed of light does help a lot. It won't make a huge difference to most casual readers, but anyone who knows that the Earth is roughly 8 lightminutes away from the sun (fairly common knowledge) can easily use the .11c to figure out exactly how fast it is in a meaningful way. Using mph/kph isn't meaningful to most readers because it's on such a different scale from anything else we'd normally measure in mph/kph.
"Actually the flaw is yours. Did the fact that not all members of the Nazi party were fully committed to "the cause" make that group any less dangerous? No, it did not."
But it did mean that we didn't prosecute all Nazis for war crimes just because they were Nazis.
Also, newsflash, many major religions support the cause of converting others or killing them. Including Christians and Jews. A clear majority of Muslims think that's an outdated concept just as much as Christians and Jews do too. It's just some relatively tiny sects that still support it (see Westboro Baptist Church).
Your mistake is being an idiot who insists on being literal when you know there is more being implied.
[Lots of Citations Needed]
Which puts it right on par with Android and iOS
A surprising number of apps in the android store are little more than a collection of static pages, with the odd calculator or flashcard functionality thrown in. Stuff that should be fairly easy for a GUI based editor to handle. So the end result is that this is just making it easier for Windows to have more apps like those already available on other platforms.
Check out the bulk of Android apps... most of them could be made by a monkey flinging poop at a keyboard. It's not aimed at people looking to make The Next Big Thing.
You can make a pretty usable website using only WYSIWYG editors, so why not an app? The two really aren't that different considering they're both aimed at the casual/amateur market.
It's not about efficiency, it's about ease of use. A massive number of apps out there are little more complex than the flashcards or calculator programming exercises used in every Programming 101 class. It's not designed to completely replace coding or be more efficient; it's designed as a way for inexperienced people to develop simple apps, which in turn inflates the number of apps available on Windows.
Slashdot is not the intended userbase for a program like this. The intended userbase is teachers that want to throw together a study guide app, kids that want to make an app for their club, moms that want to release a Family Newsletter app.
It's not really a contradiction, it's just adding a layer between the dev and the actual code. Think WYSIWYG web editors that have been around forever. You're still building a website, it's just showing the computer what you want and letting it generate the actual code. It's really not a lot different than coding in C# and then having it compiled into binary... you're just creating the program at a level even further away from what the computer will actually run. Of course, like the WYSIWYG web editors, the code will almost certainly be sloppy and inefficient compared to coding it yourself, but it opens up the market for basic apps to people that otherwise couldn't/wouldn't make them.
My post makes a few points, but I don't see the conflict.
1) Rocket tech hasn't changed much. This, we agreed on.
2) It was practical to do it that way on the moon in 1969.
3) It has not been practical to do it on Earth up to this point.
4) The main difference in practicality between Earth and the moon has to do with atmosphere (or lack thereof) and gravity.
Don't confuse practical with possible. I never said we couldn't do it on Earth, just that we've had better ways due to the slow evolution of rocket technology and that might finally be changing.
Are we talking 25 degrees off an axis perpendicular to the ground or parallel to the ground? Because the former is still close enough to the perpendicular to be considered pointing "mostly down" rather than "mostly sideways" or, if NASA copies my Kerbal designs, "mostly up, no over, no down, no up again".
The moon has considerably less gravity and atmosphere to worry about for VTOL. So if it's practical on the moon in 1969, it's reasonable it would take the better part of a century to become practical on Earth given that rocket technology hasn't changed that drastically since the Nazis were launching V-2s (or depending on how you define drastically, since the Chinese were launching emperors, see Wan Hu).
Which apparently includes all financial transactions as well
Ok, SSDs give much better performance. I never disputed that. However, the performance still isn't worth to price to a lot of people. It's the same reason some people will buy a car with a 1.6L engine and others will buy the same car with the 2.0L engine. It's not that the 1.6L people don't value the extra power of the 2.0L, it's that they don't want to pay more for it.
I never said it was an obstacle at all. If you read the post it was replying to, I was saying the big empty is the perfect place for tracks. The poster I was replying to seemed to think rail would only go between suburbs and cities, not across the empty spaces between cities.
I like my women like I like my AI joke generator. Inaccessible to most of the interested geeks.
I was referring to the geography of the country, which should be obvious from talking about fields and deserts. As in, thousands of miles across with most of those miles having very few people. So yes, it's very comparable to China or Russia. Or Canada. Or Australia. Or Brazil