Yeah, and then you get a crappy-quality 3rd-party back cover, and you lose the water resistance that the S5 is famous for, because apparently the 3rd-party back cover makers are too incompetent to figure out how to replicate that feature.
I wouldn't hold my breath. From what I've seen, very little has improved in FOSS-land in the last 5 years, and a lot of things seem to have gotten worse (Gnome 3 is a prime example here). FOSS was exciting back in the late 90s and through the mid-2000s, after that it's been all downhill. (Of course, proprietary software has been a horror-show in the last 5 years too, just look at Windows Metro, Windows 10 spyware, etc.)
Drones would give Palestinian terrorists a distinct advantage in launching their attacks by providing crucial Intel. Drones could observe troop movement or the location of convoys,
Please explain how these drones would be used for all this stuff when they have a range of 160 feet.
If my neighbor regularly launches explosives at me, why would I let them have drones with cameras to see where to shoot those missiles at?
Because if you have a neighbor that you think is bent on murdering you, and you're dumb enough to insist on living only 160 feet from him, then you deserve to get murdered for the good of humanity.
(According to another comment here, these drones have a range of a whopping 160 feet. They're not going to be flying far from Gaza with that kind of range.)
They should just let them have the drones, and put up WiFi jammers around the perimeter of the Strip so that the drones are useless outside of Gaza. These things can't have that much range anyway.
Most Android phones these days don't have removable memory cards. That's considered a high-end feature, and Samsung even dropped that feature from the Galaxy S6.
As a paying customer, I demand to always have an easy and natural way to disable all remote control and telemetry, and to easily tell that it's disabled.
Haha, good luck with that. You might as well demand all the source code too.
Asimov's laws apply only to robots, but the doctrine I am demanding will eventually apply to everything. (Even computer operating systems, where the wide-spread abuse has already begun, thanks to Windows 10.)
This proves my point. Windows 10 is blatantly spying on its users, forcing "upgrades" on them, preventing them from disabling the spying, etc., yet people are all happily using it anyway (and where they aren't happily using it, they're using it out of resignation). No one is actually abandoning the Windows platform because of these blatant abuses.
Since consumers will obviously buy whatever they're told to buy, and only a few malcontents will protest it (and their numbers are just too small to make a difference), why would any IoT companies bother to listen to your demands with regard to control and telemetry?
Actually, one thing I really would like is a house that responds to voice commands and does more things automatically for me. I don't want it all going through my phone though (though it might be nice to have some kind of status display app on my phone to check up on my home while I'm away). But for starters and an example, it'd be really nice if I could use a voice command at night to turn on the lights, instead of having to fumble around in the dark for a switch. It'd be even nicer if I could use a voice command to turn the lights on at low-brightness, or better yet in red, so that I could go to the bathroom without being blinded or messing up my Circadian rhythms; it'd make it easier to fall back asleep when I'm done. Now maybe you're thinking something like "I have a touch lamp next to my bed so this isn't a big problem for me", but the touch lamp isn't going to let you easily select nighttime red illumination, AND light up a pathway all the way to the bathroom, and the bathroom itself, with nighttime red illumination for you. But a voice command like "red illumination to bathroom" could do all that for you.
There's plenty of other applications for this: motorized blinds, also activated by voice, would be nice: when you wake up, you can say "open all blinds" and you'd be greeted by sunshine while still in bed, without having to walk around your room and do it manually. You could also have a voice command to turn on your shower and run it until the water is hot. (Point-of-use heaters would make this less necessary, but you could have voice commands to turn it on at a preset temperature, so different users can have different presets.)
Also very useful would be voice notifications from your house: it could tell you when there's some kind of problem with the HVAC, or warn you that running the HVAC with the windows open is stupid, or that your cat's litter box needs to be emptied. It could also warn you, through your phone, that someone's inside your house when you're not expecting anyone.
To be fair, TVs are supposed to be designed for the average moron to use. If you had trouble finding the power switch, then that TV was probably a very bad design, and deserves bad reviews and a reputation for being hard to use. Turning on a TV should be a no-brainer, and if it isn't, the designer failed.
Imagine a world where the only clothes sold were spike heels and leopard-print mini-skirts -- meaning even you were forced to either wear whore clothes or go naked. Would you like to live in such a world?
Sure, why not? It's really not that hard to make your own clothes. Similarly, it's not that hard to download Linux and use it.
If people are such sheep that they will only use/buy what's made available to them by a few giant corporations, and are unwilling to take their lives into their own hands, then yes, they do deserve whatever happens to them. The whole reason most of us have phones running the Linux kernel is because a bunch of people decided they weren't going to just accept whatever crap a few big corporations deigned to sell them.
Microsoft is looking forward to having a Windows variant running on every small device in the home. It'll be great when you can't make toast in the morning before you rush out for work because your toaster has to download a bunch of updates and apply them and reboot before it'll make any toast.
Oh please, why would they kill him unless he's doing something to antagonize the ruling elite there? Snowden is antagonizing the ruling elite in the US, so of course Russia is happy about that, but there's zero evidence that he's going to do anything at all to piss off the Russian government or other elites. He's really not in a position to, even if he wanted to. It's not like they're going to hire him to be a system administrator for highly-classified Russian government computers.
Trump's a blowhard, but he's not nearly as much of a monster as Cruz would be in office. Cruz wants to turn the US into a theocracy. At least Trump wants some kind of universal healthcare.
Give it up, you're arguing with a libertarian. They think people should be able to do whatever they want without any interference from the government, even if what they want involves murdering people. They're really nothing more than dressed-up anarchists, and this guy proves it.
As for fuel efficiency of turbines, some other people around here seem to think gas turbines are wonders of fuel efficiency and that you can get 100+mpg with them in a car, so that's why I was arguing that.
The bit about scavenging waste heat is very interesting, though of course that wouldn't apply to a vehicle.
But as for comparing 70s tank gas turbine tech to 2010s diesel engine tech, why hasn't gas turbine tech also evolved? I'm guessing because no one's bothered much with it, but it's interesting to think how it might compare, or if it has fundamental limitations which would prevent it being competitive.
My username here is that of an orc. For LotR fans, there were almost no female characters in those books.
Are you going to also assume that everyone who plays a video game with a female avatar is female?
I don't know what you picked for your Ebay name, but mine is mostly my last name, and has no gender reference at all. In fact, now that I think about it, I do *not* see names like "amy82" on there very much, they're usually business names ("citycomputerparts") or something that only makes sense to the seller. High-volume sellers are usually going to have some kind of business name.
Maybe, but perhaps not: if a woman is so stupid that she puts in her Ebay auction "look at me!!! I'm a woman!!! Buy from me!!" (instead of just keeping her gender out of it like most other people), she's probably dumb enough to be in that 7% of workplace fatalities which is female, according to your stat. After all, it's only a small minority of women who come out and say they're women in their Ebay ad.
(One thing I wonder about is whether there is also a trend in sex of the purchasers -- i.e. do women buy more from women and less from men?)
Quite likely, however that should have been controlled for in the study if they were comparing auctions of identical items. You can't draw any conclusions about gender gaps by comparing men buying computer parts and power tools from other men to women buying dresses and shoes from other women.
But yes, I imagine there is definitely such a trend; men aren't likely to buy a lot of women's clothes and shoes on Ebay, for instance, for obvious reasons, and it's reasonable to assume that most of that stuff is also being sold by women.
This also raises the question: why the heck would an Ebay seller self-identify as a female? Or male for that reason? Why would you list personal information at all in your Ebay ad? What a stupid thing to do.
I think I would also be willing to pay less for a product if the seller self-identified as female. Why? Simple: I would think they're an idiot for putting that kind of info out there.
The advantage for M1A1 is the same for putting turbines on aircraft wings. Power to weight (and size) ratio is more important than absolute unit efficiency in this kind of case.
No, it's not. Battle tanks are incredibly heavy, and they don't fly. Power-to-weight ratio is not important for a tank engine. That's why **everyone else** uses diesel engines. The American design is just plain dumb. Power-to-weight is indeed important for aircraft; main battle tanks are not aircraft, they're land vehicles and they don't even need to go particularly fast.
You can get a lot of power in a small space when you use a turbine. Conventional piston engines take up a large amount of space in a tank body. The M1A1 would end up being substantially bigger and heavier (or a LOT slower) if it was constrained to using conventional traditional diesel engines - plus those conventional engines are high maintenance + fragile due to mechanical complexity and operating close to material design limits.
Oh bullshit. Russia's main battle tank, the T-90, uses diesel engines. China's T-99 tank is diesel. Best of all, Russia's brand-new T-14 Armata is also powered by a 1500hp diesel engine, and it has a power-to-weight ratio of 31hp/ton, which beats the M1A1's 24-27 (figures from Wikipedia). So much for your vaunted power-to-weight ratio of turbines.
From Wikipedia, about the fuel consumption: "The gas turbine propulsion system has proven quite reliable in practice and combat, but its high fuel consumption is a serious logistic issue (starting up the turbine alone consumes nearly 10 US gallons (38 L) of fuel). The engine burns more than 1.67 US gallons (6.3 L) per mile (60 US gallons (230 L) per hour) when traveling cross-country and 10 US gallons (38 L) per hour when idle."
And then, get this!!: "General Dynamics has been working on a drop-in diesel engine to replace the gas turbine engine. It is smaller than the turbine, 14% cheaper to operate per mile, and has a four-fan cooling system which is to greatly reduce the tank's heat signature."
So apparently, the turbine is such a gas hog, and problematic in other ways, that the Army already wants to switch to a diesel engine. And as for your claim about piston engines taking up too much space, apparently that was total bullshit too, because the GD replacement engine will be smaller!
I don't disagree about competition being good, I had just never heard of a place in the US where there were multiple cable operators and residents had a choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and then you get a crappy-quality 3rd-party back cover, and you lose the water resistance that the S5 is famous for, because apparently the 3rd-party back cover makers are too incompetent to figure out how to replicate that feature.
I wouldn't hold my breath. From what I've seen, very little has improved in FOSS-land in the last 5 years, and a lot of things seem to have gotten worse (Gnome 3 is a prime example here). FOSS was exciting back in the late 90s and through the mid-2000s, after that it's been all downhill. (Of course, proprietary software has been a horror-show in the last 5 years too, just look at Windows Metro, Windows 10 spyware, etc.)
Drones would give Palestinian terrorists a distinct advantage in launching their attacks by providing crucial Intel. Drones could observe troop movement or the location of convoys,
Please explain how these drones would be used for all this stuff when they have a range of 160 feet.
If my neighbor regularly launches explosives at me, why would I let them have drones with cameras to see where to shoot those missiles at?
Because if you have a neighbor that you think is bent on murdering you, and you're dumb enough to insist on living only 160 feet from him, then you deserve to get murdered for the good of humanity.
(According to another comment here, these drones have a range of a whopping 160 feet. They're not going to be flying far from Gaza with that kind of range.)
They should just let them have the drones, and put up WiFi jammers around the perimeter of the Strip so that the drones are useless outside of Gaza. These things can't have that much range anyway.
Most Android phones these days don't have removable memory cards. That's considered a high-end feature, and Samsung even dropped that feature from the Galaxy S6.
As a paying customer, I demand to always have an easy and natural way to disable all remote control and telemetry, and to easily tell that it's disabled.
Haha, good luck with that. You might as well demand all the source code too.
Asimov's laws apply only to robots, but the doctrine I am demanding will eventually apply to everything. (Even computer operating systems, where the wide-spread abuse has already begun, thanks to Windows 10.)
This proves my point. Windows 10 is blatantly spying on its users, forcing "upgrades" on them, preventing them from disabling the spying, etc., yet people are all happily using it anyway (and where they aren't happily using it, they're using it out of resignation). No one is actually abandoning the Windows platform because of these blatant abuses.
Since consumers will obviously buy whatever they're told to buy, and only a few malcontents will protest it (and their numbers are just too small to make a difference), why would any IoT companies bother to listen to your demands with regard to control and telemetry?
Actually, one thing I really would like is a house that responds to voice commands and does more things automatically for me. I don't want it all going through my phone though (though it might be nice to have some kind of status display app on my phone to check up on my home while I'm away). But for starters and an example, it'd be really nice if I could use a voice command at night to turn on the lights, instead of having to fumble around in the dark for a switch. It'd be even nicer if I could use a voice command to turn the lights on at low-brightness, or better yet in red, so that I could go to the bathroom without being blinded or messing up my Circadian rhythms; it'd make it easier to fall back asleep when I'm done. Now maybe you're thinking something like "I have a touch lamp next to my bed so this isn't a big problem for me", but the touch lamp isn't going to let you easily select nighttime red illumination, AND light up a pathway all the way to the bathroom, and the bathroom itself, with nighttime red illumination for you. But a voice command like "red illumination to bathroom" could do all that for you.
There's plenty of other applications for this: motorized blinds, also activated by voice, would be nice: when you wake up, you can say "open all blinds" and you'd be greeted by sunshine while still in bed, without having to walk around your room and do it manually. You could also have a voice command to turn on your shower and run it until the water is hot. (Point-of-use heaters would make this less necessary, but you could have voice commands to turn it on at a preset temperature, so different users can have different presets.)
Also very useful would be voice notifications from your house: it could tell you when there's some kind of problem with the HVAC, or warn you that running the HVAC with the windows open is stupid, or that your cat's litter box needs to be emptied. It could also warn you, through your phone, that someone's inside your house when you're not expecting anyone.
To be fair, TVs are supposed to be designed for the average moron to use. If you had trouble finding the power switch, then that TV was probably a very bad design, and deserves bad reviews and a reputation for being hard to use. Turning on a TV should be a no-brainer, and if it isn't, the designer failed.
Imagine a world where the only clothes sold were spike heels and leopard-print mini-skirts -- meaning even you were forced to either wear whore clothes or go naked. Would you like to live in such a world?
Sure, why not? It's really not that hard to make your own clothes. Similarly, it's not that hard to download Linux and use it.
If people are such sheep that they will only use/buy what's made available to them by a few giant corporations, and are unwilling to take their lives into their own hands, then yes, they do deserve whatever happens to them. The whole reason most of us have phones running the Linux kernel is because a bunch of people decided they weren't going to just accept whatever crap a few big corporations deigned to sell them.
Microsoft is looking forward to having a Windows variant running on every small device in the home. It'll be great when you can't make toast in the morning before you rush out for work because your toaster has to download a bunch of updates and apply them and reboot before it'll make any toast.
Oh please, why would they kill him unless he's doing something to antagonize the ruling elite there? Snowden is antagonizing the ruling elite in the US, so of course Russia is happy about that, but there's zero evidence that he's going to do anything at all to piss off the Russian government or other elites. He's really not in a position to, even if he wanted to. It's not like they're going to hire him to be a system administrator for highly-classified Russian government computers.
Trump's a blowhard, but he's not nearly as much of a monster as Cruz would be in office. Cruz wants to turn the US into a theocracy. At least Trump wants some kind of universal healthcare.
I hate to break it to you, but it's not hard for a mugger to get your fingerprint. All they need is a knife....
Give it up, you're arguing with a libertarian. They think people should be able to do whatever they want without any interference from the government, even if what they want involves murdering people. They're really nothing more than dressed-up anarchists, and this guy proves it.
So anyone who snatches your phone from you can drain money out of your bank account too?
Sounds like a great system!
Very informative post, thanks.
As for fuel efficiency of turbines, some other people around here seem to think gas turbines are wonders of fuel efficiency and that you can get 100+mpg with them in a car, so that's why I was arguing that.
The bit about scavenging waste heat is very interesting, though of course that wouldn't apply to a vehicle.
But as for comparing 70s tank gas turbine tech to 2010s diesel engine tech, why hasn't gas turbine tech also evolved? I'm guessing because no one's bothered much with it, but it's interesting to think how it might compare, or if it has fundamental limitations which would prevent it being competitive.
The study is bullshit. Most high-volume sellers do not identify as a gender.
My username here is that of an orc. For LotR fans, there were almost no female characters in those books.
Are you going to also assume that everyone who plays a video game with a female avatar is female?
I don't know what you picked for your Ebay name, but mine is mostly my last name, and has no gender reference at all. In fact, now that I think about it, I do *not* see names like "amy82" on there very much, they're usually business names ("citycomputerparts") or something that only makes sense to the seller. High-volume sellers are usually going to have some kind of business name.
Maybe, but perhaps not: if a woman is so stupid that she puts in her Ebay auction "look at me!!! I'm a woman!!! Buy from me!!" (instead of just keeping her gender out of it like most other people), she's probably dumb enough to be in that 7% of workplace fatalities which is female, according to your stat. After all, it's only a small minority of women who come out and say they're women in their Ebay ad.
(One thing I wonder about is whether there is also a trend in sex of the purchasers -- i.e. do women buy more from women and less from men?)
Quite likely, however that should have been controlled for in the study if they were comparing auctions of identical items. You can't draw any conclusions about gender gaps by comparing men buying computer parts and power tools from other men to women buying dresses and shoes from other women.
But yes, I imagine there is definitely such a trend; men aren't likely to buy a lot of women's clothes and shoes on Ebay, for instance, for obvious reasons, and it's reasonable to assume that most of that stuff is also being sold by women.
This also raises the question: why the heck would an Ebay seller self-identify as a female? Or male for that reason? Why would you list personal information at all in your Ebay ad? What a stupid thing to do.
I think I would also be willing to pay less for a product if the seller self-identified as female. Why? Simple: I would think they're an idiot for putting that kind of info out there.
The advantage for M1A1 is the same for putting turbines on aircraft wings. Power to weight (and size) ratio is more important than absolute unit efficiency in this kind of case.
No, it's not. Battle tanks are incredibly heavy, and they don't fly. Power-to-weight ratio is not important for a tank engine. That's why **everyone else** uses diesel engines. The American design is just plain dumb. Power-to-weight is indeed important for aircraft; main battle tanks are not aircraft, they're land vehicles and they don't even need to go particularly fast.
You can get a lot of power in a small space when you use a turbine. Conventional piston engines take up a large amount of space in a tank body. The M1A1 would end up being substantially bigger and heavier (or a LOT slower) if it was constrained to using conventional traditional diesel engines - plus those conventional engines are high maintenance + fragile due to mechanical complexity and operating close to material design limits.
Oh bullshit. Russia's main battle tank, the T-90, uses diesel engines. China's T-99 tank is diesel. Best of all, Russia's brand-new T-14 Armata is also powered by a 1500hp diesel engine, and it has a power-to-weight ratio of 31hp/ton, which beats the M1A1's 24-27 (figures from Wikipedia). So much for your vaunted power-to-weight ratio of turbines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
From Wikipedia, about the fuel consumption:
"The gas turbine propulsion system has proven quite reliable in practice and combat, but its high fuel consumption is a serious logistic issue (starting up the turbine alone consumes nearly 10 US gallons (38 L) of fuel). The engine burns more than 1.67 US gallons (6.3 L) per mile (60 US gallons (230 L) per hour) when traveling cross-country and 10 US gallons (38 L) per hour when idle."
And then, get this!!:
"General Dynamics has been working on a drop-in diesel engine to replace the gas turbine engine. It is smaller than the turbine, 14% cheaper to operate per mile, and has a four-fan cooling system which is to greatly reduce the tank's heat signature."
So apparently, the turbine is such a gas hog, and problematic in other ways, that the Army already wants to switch to a diesel engine. And as for your claim about piston engines taking up too much space, apparently that was total bullshit too, because the GD replacement engine will be smaller!
$800 a year to get away from a horrible spouse is cheap.
I don't disagree about competition being good, I had just never heard of a place in the US where there were multiple cable operators and residents had a choice.