Well, there are already lots of automated mowers on the market that seem to work just fine. I think they use the same system that dog collars use. You bury a wire and the mower detects when it reaches the perimeter of the lawn by detecting the wire.
As to homing in on the base station to recharge or empty the hopper... a wifi SSID ping is permitted under existing FCC rules so why not just do that. Only have no network behind it. Call it "irobot mower base station 1~infinity" Then you have IR emitters on the base station for secondary confirmation and line of sight with charge ports verification.
The FCC doesn't seem to be needed in this matter. Existing FCC technologies can be used to obtain the same effect.
Not my experience... possibly because there are a lot of programs that query location passively or something. But if I don't turn my GPS off my battery life is substantially lower. Granted, the battery doesn't drain as fast as when I'm using the GPS for navigation. The battery life is pathetic under those conditions. But typically I can plug into the car's inverter in that case.
Whenever I see someone bitch about battery life and I look at their phone... they have all their radios on.
Bluetooth, Wifi, GPS, Data.... everything is on.
I suggest "hey you'd have better battery life if you switched some of that shit off"... and they say "but its le hard and Ie lazy"... to which I basically say "okay"... and promptly lose interest.
Switch the radios off that you're not using and the phone will typically last all day no trouble. If you need those radios on for some reason... and I would argue that most people that think they do... do not... then I'd just suggest people get an external battery and charge their phone in their purse or backpack etc. I have a backpack that I carry around with me everywhere. The back pack is the male purse. I keep all my shit in it.... which includes a battery capable of keeping my phone topped up with all radios on. If I need to really thrash my battery then I just plug it into the external battery. Problem solved.
Not really, it just means I don't keep 9-5 hours. And you over estimate how much time I spend on this.
What I do generally is read all your comments, respond to them... generally takes about 10 minutes to respond to about 10 comments unless I go into detail with something. Then I check for new articles and make comments on those if I want to... but I can't just press submit when they're through. I have to wait. So while doing other things i check back and press 'send'... I do that at work a lot. On a break I'll respond to everything... and then while working I might press send. But I literally didn't do anything besides that.
As to anger... your fixation on that presumed emotion admits that you're attempting to use it as an insult.
I've given my explanation for why you think anger is an insult.
In your own words, why do you think that me being angry is an insult? You're ultimately going to circle around to exactly what I was talking about thus validating my entire position. My prediction. But I'd be fascinated to see your attempt to avoid the inevitable.
I'm hyper rational. You demonstrably have no experience with my mentality. Otherwise you would realize you're playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun.
As to neutrinos not being dark matter... okay, I'm just confirming that we haven't actually found any of it yet... like touched it or seen it at anything short of galactic distances... and only by inference.
As to alternative gravity and fudge factors, I'm merely pointing out that there is no superiority there. On that basis you'd be on equal terms with other theories.
As to the difference between flushed out and wrong answers... I think we could agree that there is disproportionate energy put into the standard model and as such it will be able to answer more questions off the cuff than other theories. I would argue that if you had put as much energy into other theories as you have into the standard model they would have 'answers' for all these things. Would they be better answers than dark matter? Possibly not. But would they be worse? Also possibly not.
Consider that you've added a lot of extra particles into the standard model that have never actually been detected. And even so there are serious problems.
I believe the standard model has been able to describe about 5 percent of the observable universe. That is... 5 percent is conventional matter and energy... about 25 percent is dark matter... and 70 percent is dark energy. Now, if your system describes 5 percent of the observable universe while the remaining 95 percent is "stuff we don't understand" then I don't understand why there is such a high degree of confidence in the system.
There is also a big difference between coming up with a model that describes the way a system acts and actually what the system is. Things like string theory etc appear to be mostly mathematical models that describe certain things without actually representing them in fact. I believe on occasion this distinction is not observed or forgotten and that can be dangerous.
As to the improbability of theories, I think you have a point in any situation where things are murky and you don't really know what is going on... and the thing you're proposing has some precedent. Arguably Dark Matter qualifies for all of that. I think we'd have to acknowledge that we could invent improbable theories for things. God for example. You could answer any scientific question with "god". And that's unsatisfying and improbable in a lot of cases for a lot of reasons.... if not in all cases for even more reasons.
So the defense of the probability of dark matter is first that we're dealing with something that we really don't get. We're seeing huge deviations in orbits and the only thing we know of that can distort gravity is matter... and the nature of the distortion requires very weird matter that we have not yet found. That said, you pointed out... there are neutrinos and if they exist maybe something that are to neutrinos what neutrinos are to more conventional matter exists.
I get it. I'd just like to see more questioning of fundamental assumptions. It shouldn't escape your notice that we are now arguing both that there is a space-time and that it is filled with an ever present flow of matter that is flowing through us at all times transparently. This is sounding to some extent like a return to the whole aether thing. Now I know the aether was disproven... but the nature of all these "corrections" all seem to basically add it back in... in various ways. Not in all obviously. But that seems suspicious to me.
I'm sure I sound like a crack pot or an idiot or something... Unfortunate if that's all I am to people that know more on the issue. I come from a place of genuine interest and genuine curiosity and genuine intellectual integrity. Ignorant? I freely admit it. But I would argue that is my only real flaw here. And it is possible that crippling though my deficiency is... there may be other people that are not ignorant but who possibly lack the courage to wipe the chalkboard clean... and build a new theory from the ground up with all observed data.
A unified theory has eluded physicists because the macro theories do not play nice with the nano theories.
I feel you. I type very quickly as well and I like to respond to about 10 comments I get in a row. But I instead have to respond to them and then occasionally press the "submit" button when that has finally timed out.
If/. says only X comments per day. I think I'm allowed 50 per 24 hours... which is plenty. That's fine. But don't tell me how quickly I can respond to something. That is what i hate. By all means, restrict me to 50. But I am completely with you that most of the posting restrictions are bullshit. Especially with all the ACs which potentially can respond much more quickly than that if they use rotating proxies... sounds like a pain in the ass but I've set systems up that would automatically change proxies pretty rapidly.
I'm a little baffled as to why any of that is needed?
I'd just use a wifi network for it. Why do anything else? Here someone will say "what if you wanted to do a long range whatever"... I don't think the "beacons" work that way. I think they're just used to help the mower home in on a charge station. Mix that with an infared light on the front and the mower would have a second thing to home in on. The wifi wouldn't even have to do anything. It could just make a bogus SSID broadcast every second or so.... done.
There are a lot of automated mowers on the market already. I'm a little confused as to why iRobot bothered with the FCC on this matter. What do they get out of this besides having to deal with lethargic retrograde federal institutions with no vested interest in competence, customer service, or even rationality? Clearly the winning move is to find whatever loophole you can use so you just avoid their mandate.
MS gets into trouble every time they release a new OS and its mostly gripes about GUI issues. Why not solve that by having them be two separate products?
There are already some third party GUIs. They generally fall back on MS interfaces when things get down and dirty but the general file navigation and application execution and desktop experience is already something you can replace in some cases.
MS should have a framework/api for replacing the interface with... whatever.
This is also a big security and ease of use thing.
In corporate environments, a lot of what you're trying to do is give users the ability to access X but not Y. And changing the way the interface works... up and including just outright removing things without a password would actually be pretty cool.
In consumer environments... you know that family member that only does 5 things on their computer and never anything else... and is constantly confused by everything? What if you just removed the ability to do anything but those five things on the machine and made whatever settings they actually might like to play with really prominent... volume... mouse sensitivity... stuff they might like to actually mess with.
I've played around with a few programs to make custom GUIs... I really like Kiosk software for that. It restricts users to what they should be doing not what they shouldn't be doing. And it helps people that are clueless use a system that they'd otherwise struggle with.
I still remember the old litestep days. I especially love the program menus from that GUI. They were LIGHTNING. Because rather than query a folder for short cuts, it just had a text file it kept in memory. The program list was a literal list in a literal text file. So when you clicked on the programs button INSTANTLY open.
Anyway, I think MS's new OS's would be less annoying if they weren't bundled with a mandatory GUI change. Then we could just focus on new features, improved performance, whatever... and people could use whatever GUI made them stiff in the coolness of the night.
Then I plug it in to the pack and throw it in the backpack. I mean, I have a stereo bluetooth headset that I use all day. So, if I get a call... I just press a button and I'm talking to people. So long as the phone is in bluetooth range... who cares.
The big issue with phone battery life is that people leave all their fucking radios on all the time. If you leave Wifi, Data, and GPS on all the time... then you're fucked sideways with a chainsaw. There's no reasonable battery that is going to handle all that crap all day.
I personally only have the bluetooth on most of the time. Bluetooth sips power unlike everything else.
Here people will either say "I need all these radios on" for no reason or they'll be honest and say "I'm too lazy to turn them off"... I put the buttons to turn them on and off on my home screen... and generally don't mess with them much because I keep them the fuck off. But if I need to quickly turn something on, I do that... and then I turn it off when I'm done.
I very very rarely need to resort to the battery pack. And when that happens... there it is.
I find myself needing it most often when I use the GPS. The GPS radio gobbles power for some reason.
As to models being fit to observations... well that's a hypocritical thing to say given that the default theory of the day has lots of "constants" built into it to fit things into place and then the mass is a variable you always fit to the situation.
Why is it okay in one model to do that and not okay in another? I mean you're only inferring the dark matter in the first place because your observations weren't lining up.
And any rival theory has the problem that its never going to be as deep... even if the existing theory is wrong. How much work has been done on GR and SR? You can't compete with the sheer volumes of text written about it. So saying "your theory isn't as well flushed out" isn't really fair nor does it mean anything is right or wrong.
As to me sticking the word improbable into things... well... maybe we have different definitions of what that means. Would you mind saying what you find to be improbable and then we can look at the basis of that opinion and see where our definitions differ?
... I mean... I haven't had a watch in years. Why? I carry around this cell phone with me everywhere like a pocket watch. The damn thing is linked into atomic clocks and changes times based on what time zone it is in... its got more elaborate warnings etc than any watch could claim.
And lets not forget that the "EVIL iWATCH"... is really just slaved to the stupid phone in the first place. Its the cell phone killing the watch.
Not the wearables. At this point, the watch is basically a fashion accessory. Sort of like hipster glasses.
The swiss watch was a big deal because it was very precise. It was high tech. When was the last time a swiss watch was actually high tech? Casio pretty much blew their brains out decades ago. You could get a cheap shit 5 dollar digital watch that was about as precise as a comparatively expensive swiss watch. Why buy the swiss watch over the casio? Status... "look at this expensive thing I bought"... Meh.
So yeah, Apple is eating that market because their 10k gold watch is pretty much a comical ego trip.
Am I generally negative on wearables? I am on ones that are slaved to a single vendor or that explicitly rely on the cell phone while presenting themselves as being anything but precisely that.
The one I like the best so far are the Pebble watches. They at least don't have you recharging the fucking things every five seconds.
This censorship push only works if people cooperate with it. If they are forced to block half the internet then the entire regime fails.
Simply refuse to cooperate. Call their bluff.
So Reddit gets blocked OFFICIALLY in Russia? So what? There are lots of tools to bypass that stuff and the more that Russia employs censorship the more Russians will employ anti censorship tools. Unless Russia goes full North Korea and isolates the entire Russian internet... they're not going to be able to control it.
And frankly if they did go full north korea... why would Reddit care? Big US internet companies that have global penetration keep getting threatened by Spain or France or Russia... "do this or else"... if we didn't care if China blocked us then why would we care about Russia?
I didn't. And what am I going to do about it? It doesn't hurt you or anything else whatever I believe about dark matter.
And the notion that if you just nod and bow you're ahead of the curve... I reject it. I might not know what I'm talking about but at least I'm thinking about it. Which is more than most people can say for themselves.
I'm not a believer in the old Catholic Church system where the priest tells people what is good and evil and the peasants kneel and bow.
That's not who I am. I'm going to read the book myself and have my own thoughts about it. And if that bothers you... Tough shit.
These are not serious people that take their jobs seriously. They're status seeking climbers that have long ago surpassed their competency.
Neither Hillary nor Kerry are sharp or serious enough to hold these jobs. They have no concept of the responsibility they're assuming or the fundamental adjustments in attitude they require.
A birthday clown does not have the same mentality as a general commanding an invasion into hostile territory. A guy flipping burgers does not have the same mentality as a guy preforming open heart surgery.
I'm not talking about education or experience but how seriously you're taking what you're doing. You have to understand that if you fuck up people die. That if you fuck up a war could start and it will be your fault even if no one ever fingers you with the blame.
Who here thinks Hillary was a competent head of state? Kerry? They're birthday clowns.
I feel comfortable with them doing something that isn't life or death. I think Hillary was fine in the US Senate for example... same with Kerry. I think the Senate is a great place for people like that if they have to be in government... you could die in that job and who would even notice? Your ability to do real harm in the Senate is limited by the other forces that will control that sort of behavior.
But as the head of the state department? what the fuck is Obama thinking putting these morons in charge of that? What is the game?
I don't know... I want to believe Obama is a mysterious genius but the more I see nonsense like this the more I think he's in over his head as well.
Could I do a better job? it sounds like the height of arrogance. But I wouldn't put career politicians with no real track record of competence besides loyalty to a political faction into positions of that much power. I'd pick people that lived and breathed foreign policy. Someone that perhaps was an expert in the region that was most problematic. I would be very happy to grab someone that was relatively low status but high intelligence/competence and just put them in that seat.
We have this ossifying political structure where only people that were previously powerful can be accepted to other powerful positions. That's the old kings and nobles system. Fuck that. Grab no bodies that are most competent and put them in the seat.
The only place I want to see these two idiots is with their faces painted making balloon animals.
Did Russian tanks cross the Russian border into Ukraine?
Yes or no?
If a part of Mexico were unhappy with mexico... and wanted to join the US... and the US crossed the Mexican border and occupied that region with US forces... would that be a US invasion of Mexico?
Lets flip that around... if an American town wanted to join Mexico and Mexican military forces crossed the US border to occupy some town or region... would Mexico have invaded the US?
Its an invasion.
Saying otherwise is unsupportable. And no one sees it seriously in any other terms. The Russians see it that way. NATO sees it that way. The various Eastern European countries see it that way and you can bet your fucking ass that Ukraine sees it that way.
So who "says" they see it any other way? People spinning it mostly. Its not a serious position or a position taken seriously. its a talking point to baffle peasants in the West.
... you're are conflating "science" with "taking someone's word".
Science is not a question of taking someone's word. You see their study, you evaluate their evidence, consider their analysis of that evidence, and then either agree or disagree with their conclusions.
I've seen dumb guys do the same thing. Its not exactly a gender thing. Regardless, the security officer shouldn't be saying this... and apparently senior management face palmed over the issue as well.
The bullet cluster is an odd citation... I know it is used to prove dark matter but the actual evidence doesn't look compelling to me.
Could we go through that?
As to premises... my understanding is that if the speed of light is variable that could also explain a lot of this stuff.
As to the orbital characteristics of dark matter. We're talking about something that is akin to a perfect pendulum? It falls into wells... fires out the other side... rinse repeat... forever? I understand the concept, I just think it is a convenient fig leaf.
We've never actually detected it. We find things that can be explained by its existence but that's not the same thing.
Look, I am a layman... I know it. But I can think about this stuff as much as anyone... assign whatever credibility you like to the opinions but I frankly think I'm more intellectual to have opinions and think about it than those that simply memorize the theory and repeat.
We just got done with this and you agreed... safe nuclear power is reasonable. That is my position.
Pushing me into the strawmanned camp created as the polar opposite of crazy people is not valid.
if you have one group of crazy people the people opposing the crazy people are not themselves necessarily crazy in the opposite direction or crazy at all.
I reject the notion that I have to be in two polar opposite camps because one of them doesn't actually exist. There is no pro nuclear at any cost camp.
Where as there is an anti nuclear at any cost camp.
As to price anderson, I have no problem with it. That's not the issue. Its that we can't build new plants, that existing plants cannot be upgraded, that it is basically impossible to store the spent fuel anywhere because of the anti nuclear lobby, etc.
As to wind being better than nuclear... You can't possibly believe that. First, most reactors tend to generate about 1000 mega watts... power plants with more than that tend to just have multiple 1000 mega watt reactors. Wind farms are rarely over 500 mega watts and doubling up the plants isn't practical. You can't just stack them on top of each other. And then the expense of 500 mega watts of wind versus 1000 mega watts of nuclear isn't comparable. Here you might cite maintenance... but which type of plant has been shown to ACTUALLY be more sustainable? We have dead wind farms all over California going back to the 1970s. They tend to die when the subsidies run out.
Look, I want an "all of the above" approach. You want wind? Super. Lets do that. We're also going to do everything else at the same time without biasing the system one way or the other. If your wind stations with their stop and go power can compete with nuclear reactors then you won't need a political lobby or massive subsidies to do it. You can just get investors from the private sector to build it and win in the market place.
If your system is actually not as competitive as you suggest then it won't be able to do that. I'm very happy to let the market prove one of us wrong. We're seeing the Japanese restart their reactors.... not build huge wind farms. And are the Chinese scrapping their reactors for Wind? If wind were ACTUALLY cheaper wouldn't they be doing that? It isn't cheaper. Everyone with a clue knows that. You know it too. Why tell a fib to me? I'm obviously too well informed for that to be interpreted as anything but a fib.
As to radiation on DNA... who says we're exposing people to radiation? We're putting the nuclear material in a specially designed bunker where it isn't going to touch you. What is your problem?
Actually, her email was backed up in a complete format.
The IT department that had the backup was not asked for it until alternative investigations found it.
The Learner situation is a scandal.
There are fake ones and real ones. The IRS scandal was a real one.
In those 3 years she approved ONE right of center political group for tax exempt status.
1
That's not a smoking gun. That's video and eye witness accounts of the shooting.
Case closed unfortunately. And I would much rather it have been a fake scandal. It is seriously troubling that an organization like the IRS is being used for political advocacy. That is not tolerable.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there are already lots of automated mowers on the market that seem to work just fine. I think they use the same system that dog collars use. You bury a wire and the mower detects when it reaches the perimeter of the lawn by detecting the wire.
As to homing in on the base station to recharge or empty the hopper... a wifi SSID ping is permitted under existing FCC rules so why not just do that. Only have no network behind it. Call it "irobot mower base station 1~infinity" Then you have IR emitters on the base station for secondary confirmation and line of sight with charge ports verification.
The FCC doesn't seem to be needed in this matter. Existing FCC technologies can be used to obtain the same effect.
Not my experience... possibly because there are a lot of programs that query location passively or something. But if I don't turn my GPS off my battery life is substantially lower. Granted, the battery doesn't drain as fast as when I'm using the GPS for navigation. The battery life is pathetic under those conditions. But typically I can plug into the car's inverter in that case.
Whenever I see someone bitch about battery life and I look at their phone... they have all their radios on.
Bluetooth, Wifi, GPS, Data.... everything is on.
I suggest "hey you'd have better battery life if you switched some of that shit off"... and they say "but its le hard and Ie lazy"... to which I basically say "okay"... and promptly lose interest.
Switch the radios off that you're not using and the phone will typically last all day no trouble. If you need those radios on for some reason... and I would argue that most people that think they do... do not... then I'd just suggest people get an external battery and charge their phone in their purse or backpack etc. I have a backpack that I carry around with me everywhere. The back pack is the male purse. I keep all my shit in it.... which includes a battery capable of keeping my phone topped up with all radios on. If I need to really thrash my battery then I just plug it into the external battery. Problem solved.
Not really, it just means I don't keep 9-5 hours. And you over estimate how much time I spend on this.
What I do generally is read all your comments, respond to them... generally takes about 10 minutes to respond to about 10 comments unless I go into detail with something. Then I check for new articles and make comments on those if I want to... but I can't just press submit when they're through. I have to wait. So while doing other things i check back and press 'send'... I do that at work a lot. On a break I'll respond to everything... and then while working I might press send. But I literally didn't do anything besides that.
As to anger... your fixation on that presumed emotion admits that you're attempting to use it as an insult.
I've given my explanation for why you think anger is an insult.
In your own words, why do you think that me being angry is an insult? You're ultimately going to circle around to exactly what I was talking about thus validating my entire position. My prediction. But I'd be fascinated to see your attempt to avoid the inevitable.
I'm hyper rational. You demonstrably have no experience with my mentality. Otherwise you would realize you're playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun.
As to neutrinos not being dark matter... okay, I'm just confirming that we haven't actually found any of it yet... like touched it or seen it at anything short of galactic distances... and only by inference.
As to alternative gravity and fudge factors, I'm merely pointing out that there is no superiority there. On that basis you'd be on equal terms with other theories.
As to the difference between flushed out and wrong answers... I think we could agree that there is disproportionate energy put into the standard model and as such it will be able to answer more questions off the cuff than other theories. I would argue that if you had put as much energy into other theories as you have into the standard model they would have 'answers' for all these things. Would they be better answers than dark matter? Possibly not. But would they be worse? Also possibly not.
Consider that you've added a lot of extra particles into the standard model that have never actually been detected. And even so there are serious problems.
I believe the standard model has been able to describe about 5 percent of the observable universe. That is... 5 percent is conventional matter and energy... about 25 percent is dark matter... and 70 percent is dark energy. Now, if your system describes 5 percent of the observable universe while the remaining 95 percent is "stuff we don't understand" then I don't understand why there is such a high degree of confidence in the system.
There is also a big difference between coming up with a model that describes the way a system acts and actually what the system is. Things like string theory etc appear to be mostly mathematical models that describe certain things without actually representing them in fact. I believe on occasion this distinction is not observed or forgotten and that can be dangerous.
As to the improbability of theories, I think you have a point in any situation where things are murky and you don't really know what is going on... and the thing you're proposing has some precedent. Arguably Dark Matter qualifies for all of that. I think we'd have to acknowledge that we could invent improbable theories for things. God for example. You could answer any scientific question with "god". And that's unsatisfying and improbable in a lot of cases for a lot of reasons.... if not in all cases for even more reasons.
So the defense of the probability of dark matter is first that we're dealing with something that we really don't get. We're seeing huge deviations in orbits and the only thing we know of that can distort gravity is matter... and the nature of the distortion requires very weird matter that we have not yet found. That said, you pointed out... there are neutrinos and if they exist maybe something that are to neutrinos what neutrinos are to more conventional matter exists.
I get it. I'd just like to see more questioning of fundamental assumptions. It shouldn't escape your notice that we are now arguing both that there is a space-time and that it is filled with an ever present flow of matter that is flowing through us at all times transparently. This is sounding to some extent like a return to the whole aether thing. Now I know the aether was disproven... but the nature of all these "corrections" all seem to basically add it back in... in various ways. Not in all obviously. But that seems suspicious to me.
I'm sure I sound like a crack pot or an idiot or something... Unfortunate if that's all I am to people that know more on the issue. I come from a place of genuine interest and genuine curiosity and genuine intellectual integrity. Ignorant? I freely admit it. But I would argue that is my only real flaw here. And it is possible that crippling though my deficiency is... there may be other people that are not ignorant but who possibly lack the courage to wipe the chalkboard clean... and build a new theory from the ground up with all observed data.
A unified theory has eluded physicists because the macro theories do not play nice with the nano theories.
I feel you. I type very quickly as well and I like to respond to about 10 comments I get in a row. But I instead have to respond to them and then occasionally press the "submit" button when that has finally timed out.
If /. says only X comments per day. I think I'm allowed 50 per 24 hours... which is plenty. That's fine. But don't tell me how quickly I can respond to something. That is what i hate. By all means, restrict me to 50. But I am completely with you that most of the posting restrictions are bullshit. Especially with all the ACs which potentially can respond much more quickly than that if they use rotating proxies... sounds like a pain in the ass but I've set systems up that would automatically change proxies pretty rapidly.
Don't kid yourself, there is a lot of filtering.
We don't talk about it but... yeah. We filter everything. Does every organization do that? Not every organization is competent.
I'm a little baffled as to why any of that is needed?
I'd just use a wifi network for it. Why do anything else? Here someone will say "what if you wanted to do a long range whatever"... I don't think the "beacons" work that way. I think they're just used to help the mower home in on a charge station. Mix that with an infared light on the front and the mower would have a second thing to home in on. The wifi wouldn't even have to do anything. It could just make a bogus SSID broadcast every second or so.... done.
There are a lot of automated mowers on the market already. I'm a little confused as to why iRobot bothered with the FCC on this matter. What do they get out of this besides having to deal with lethargic retrograde federal institutions with no vested interest in competence, customer service, or even rationality? Clearly the winning move is to find whatever loophole you can use so you just avoid their mandate.
... and many programs for that matter.
MS gets into trouble every time they release a new OS and its mostly gripes about GUI issues. Why not solve that by having them be two separate products?
There are already some third party GUIs. They generally fall back on MS interfaces when things get down and dirty but the general file navigation and application execution and desktop experience is already something you can replace in some cases.
MS should have a framework/api for replacing the interface with... whatever.
This is also a big security and ease of use thing.
In corporate environments, a lot of what you're trying to do is give users the ability to access X but not Y. And changing the way the interface works... up and including just outright removing things without a password would actually be pretty cool.
In consumer environments... you know that family member that only does 5 things on their computer and never anything else... and is constantly confused by everything? What if you just removed the ability to do anything but those five things on the machine and made whatever settings they actually might like to play with really prominent... volume... mouse sensitivity... stuff they might like to actually mess with.
I've played around with a few programs to make custom GUIs... I really like Kiosk software for that. It restricts users to what they should be doing not what they shouldn't be doing. And it helps people that are clueless use a system that they'd otherwise struggle with.
I still remember the old litestep days. I especially love the program menus from that GUI. They were LIGHTNING. Because rather than query a folder for short cuts, it just had a text file it kept in memory. The program list was a literal list in a literal text file. So when you clicked on the programs button INSTANTLY open.
Anyway, I think MS's new OS's would be less annoying if they weren't bundled with a mandatory GUI change. Then we could just focus on new features, improved performance, whatever... and people could use whatever GUI made them stiff in the coolness of the night.
No seriously, that is your problem.
I have a little battery that I charge separately and take with me. I normally don't even need it. Its just in a backpack I lug around.
If I see my phone is going into the DANGER ZONE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Then I plug it in to the pack and throw it in the backpack. I mean, I have a stereo bluetooth headset that I use all day. So, if I get a call... I just press a button and I'm talking to people. So long as the phone is in bluetooth range... who cares.
The big issue with phone battery life is that people leave all their fucking radios on all the time. If you leave Wifi, Data, and GPS on all the time... then you're fucked sideways with a chainsaw. There's no reasonable battery that is going to handle all that crap all day.
I personally only have the bluetooth on most of the time. Bluetooth sips power unlike everything else.
Here people will either say "I need all these radios on" for no reason or they'll be honest and say "I'm too lazy to turn them off"... I put the buttons to turn them on and off on my home screen... and generally don't mess with them much because I keep them the fuck off. But if I need to quickly turn something on, I do that... and then I turn it off when I'm done.
I very very rarely need to resort to the battery pack. And when that happens... there it is.
I find myself needing it most often when I use the GPS. The GPS radio gobbles power for some reason.
Neutrinos are dark matter or not?
As to models being fit to observations... well that's a hypocritical thing to say given that the default theory of the day has lots of "constants" built into it to fit things into place and then the mass is a variable you always fit to the situation.
Why is it okay in one model to do that and not okay in another? I mean you're only inferring the dark matter in the first place because your observations weren't lining up.
And any rival theory has the problem that its never going to be as deep... even if the existing theory is wrong. How much work has been done on GR and SR? You can't compete with the sheer volumes of text written about it. So saying "your theory isn't as well flushed out" isn't really fair nor does it mean anything is right or wrong.
As to me sticking the word improbable into things... well... maybe we have different definitions of what that means. Would you mind saying what you find to be improbable and then we can look at the basis of that opinion and see where our definitions differ?
So, you're falling back on the old Troll response that ANYONE that responds to your stupid ass must be angry?
Dumb dumb dumb.
As to 3 am... I don't keep a regular schedule... and if I'm up eating cherrios and shit talking on the internet... why does that confer anger?
You don't really know what anger is in the first place. Given that you don't understand what a thing is you can't say that I am or am not it.
It would be like saying something is an apple when you don't know what an apple is... its sort of fundamental.
Idiot. :D ---- Apparently this means I'm angry... if you're stupid.
... I mean... I haven't had a watch in years. Why? I carry around this cell phone with me everywhere like a pocket watch. The damn thing is linked into atomic clocks and changes times based on what time zone it is in... its got more elaborate warnings etc than any watch could claim.
And lets not forget that the "EVIL iWATCH"... is really just slaved to the stupid phone in the first place. Its the cell phone killing the watch.
Not the wearables. At this point, the watch is basically a fashion accessory. Sort of like hipster glasses.
The swiss watch was a big deal because it was very precise. It was high tech. When was the last time a swiss watch was actually high tech? Casio pretty much blew their brains out decades ago. You could get a cheap shit 5 dollar digital watch that was about as precise as a comparatively expensive swiss watch. Why buy the swiss watch over the casio? Status... "look at this expensive thing I bought"... Meh.
So yeah, Apple is eating that market because their 10k gold watch is pretty much a comical ego trip.
Am I generally negative on wearables? I am on ones that are slaved to a single vendor or that explicitly rely on the cell phone while presenting themselves as being anything but precisely that.
The one I like the best so far are the Pebble watches. They at least don't have you recharging the fucking things every five seconds.
This censorship push only works if people cooperate with it. If they are forced to block half the internet then the entire regime fails.
Simply refuse to cooperate. Call their bluff.
So Reddit gets blocked OFFICIALLY in Russia? So what? There are lots of tools to bypass that stuff and the more that Russia employs censorship the more Russians will employ anti censorship tools. Unless Russia goes full North Korea and isolates the entire Russian internet... they're not going to be able to control it.
And frankly if they did go full north korea... why would Reddit care? Big US internet companies that have global penetration keep getting threatened by Spain or France or Russia... "do this or else"... if we didn't care if China blocked us then why would we care about Russia?
Make my fucking day, punk.
You've read the words but not understood the meaning. We have a communication failure.
Commenting on your delusion to someone else I respect... which is not you... is not a sign of anger, little one.
Your attempt to claim it is especially in that context where it is especially absurd merely underscores my point about your actual motivations.
I pegged you perfectly from the start. You're entirely transparent to me. I've dealt with enough trolls to know you better than you know yourself.
https://youtu.be/z2mXrndt1ZI?t...
You are pathetic. ;)
These systems have to be voluntary, policed by people in the industry/white hats, and highly adaptive.
Make it a government regulation and what is and is not security will be something lobbyists decide. Fuck that.
Who said I have strong opinions about it?
I didn't. And what am I going to do about it? It doesn't hurt you or anything else whatever I believe about dark matter.
And the notion that if you just nod and bow you're ahead of the curve... I reject it. I might not know what I'm talking about but at least I'm thinking about it. Which is more than most people can say for themselves.
I'm not a believer in the old Catholic Church system where the priest tells people what is good and evil and the peasants kneel and bow.
That's not who I am. I'm going to read the book myself and have my own thoughts about it. And if that bothers you... Tough shit.
These are not serious people that take their jobs seriously. They're status seeking climbers that have long ago surpassed their competency.
Neither Hillary nor Kerry are sharp or serious enough to hold these jobs. They have no concept of the responsibility they're assuming or the fundamental adjustments in attitude they require.
A birthday clown does not have the same mentality as a general commanding an invasion into hostile territory. A guy flipping burgers does not have the same mentality as a guy preforming open heart surgery.
I'm not talking about education or experience but how seriously you're taking what you're doing. You have to understand that if you fuck up people die. That if you fuck up a war could start and it will be your fault even if no one ever fingers you with the blame.
Who here thinks Hillary was a competent head of state? Kerry? They're birthday clowns.
I feel comfortable with them doing something that isn't life or death. I think Hillary was fine in the US Senate for example... same with Kerry. I think the Senate is a great place for people like that if they have to be in government... you could die in that job and who would even notice? Your ability to do real harm in the Senate is limited by the other forces that will control that sort of behavior.
But as the head of the state department? what the fuck is Obama thinking putting these morons in charge of that? What is the game?
I don't know... I want to believe Obama is a mysterious genius but the more I see nonsense like this the more I think he's in over his head as well.
Could I do a better job? it sounds like the height of arrogance. But I wouldn't put career politicians with no real track record of competence besides loyalty to a political faction into positions of that much power. I'd pick people that lived and breathed foreign policy. Someone that perhaps was an expert in the region that was most problematic. I would be very happy to grab someone that was relatively low status but high intelligence/competence and just put them in that seat.
We have this ossifying political structure where only people that were previously powerful can be accepted to other powerful positions. That's the old kings and nobles system. Fuck that. Grab no bodies that are most competent and put them in the seat.
The only place I want to see these two idiots is with their faces painted making balloon animals.
Did Russian tanks cross the Russian border into Ukraine?
Yes or no?
If a part of Mexico were unhappy with mexico... and wanted to join the US... and the US crossed the Mexican border and occupied that region with US forces... would that be a US invasion of Mexico?
Lets flip that around... if an American town wanted to join Mexico and Mexican military forces crossed the US border to occupy some town or region... would Mexico have invaded the US?
Its an invasion.
Saying otherwise is unsupportable. And no one sees it seriously in any other terms. The Russians see it that way. NATO sees it that way. The various Eastern European countries see it that way and you can bet your fucking ass that Ukraine sees it that way.
So who "says" they see it any other way? People spinning it mostly. Its not a serious position or a position taken seriously. its a talking point to baffle peasants in the West.
... you're are conflating "science" with "taking someone's word".
Science is not a question of taking someone's word. You see their study, you evaluate their evidence, consider their analysis of that evidence, and then either agree or disagree with their conclusions.
trust doesn't come into it.
So no, ad hominem has no place in science.
I've seen dumb guys do the same thing. Its not exactly a gender thing. Regardless, the security officer shouldn't be saying this... and apparently senior management face palmed over the issue as well.
The bullet cluster is an odd citation... I know it is used to prove dark matter but the actual evidence doesn't look compelling to me.
Could we go through that?
As to premises... my understanding is that if the speed of light is variable that could also explain a lot of this stuff.
As to the orbital characteristics of dark matter. We're talking about something that is akin to a perfect pendulum? It falls into wells... fires out the other side... rinse repeat... forever? I understand the concept, I just think it is a convenient fig leaf.
We've never actually detected it. We find things that can be explained by its existence but that's not the same thing.
Look, I am a layman... I know it. But I can think about this stuff as much as anyone... assign whatever credibility you like to the opinions but I frankly think I'm more intellectual to have opinions and think about it than those that simply memorize the theory and repeat.
As to being pro nuclear... What the actual fuck?
We just got done with this and you agreed... safe nuclear power is reasonable. That is my position.
Pushing me into the strawmanned camp created as the polar opposite of crazy people is not valid.
if you have one group of crazy people the people opposing the crazy people are not themselves necessarily crazy in the opposite direction or crazy at all.
I reject the notion that I have to be in two polar opposite camps because one of them doesn't actually exist. There is no pro nuclear at any cost camp.
Where as there is an anti nuclear at any cost camp.
As to price anderson, I have no problem with it. That's not the issue. Its that we can't build new plants, that existing plants cannot be upgraded, that it is basically impossible to store the spent fuel anywhere because of the anti nuclear lobby, etc.
As to wind being better than nuclear... You can't possibly believe that. First, most reactors tend to generate about 1000 mega watts... power plants with more than that tend to just have multiple 1000 mega watt reactors. Wind farms are rarely over 500 mega watts and doubling up the plants isn't practical. You can't just stack them on top of each other. And then the expense of 500 mega watts of wind versus 1000 mega watts of nuclear isn't comparable. Here you might cite maintenance... but which type of plant has been shown to ACTUALLY be more sustainable? We have dead wind farms all over California going back to the 1970s. They tend to die when the subsidies run out.
Look, I want an "all of the above" approach. You want wind? Super. Lets do that. We're also going to do everything else at the same time without biasing the system one way or the other. If your wind stations with their stop and go power can compete with nuclear reactors then you won't need a political lobby or massive subsidies to do it. You can just get investors from the private sector to build it and win in the market place.
If your system is actually not as competitive as you suggest then it won't be able to do that. I'm very happy to let the market prove one of us wrong. We're seeing the Japanese restart their reactors.... not build huge wind farms. And are the Chinese scrapping their reactors for Wind? If wind were ACTUALLY cheaper wouldn't they be doing that? It isn't cheaper. Everyone with a clue knows that. You know it too. Why tell a fib to me? I'm obviously too well informed for that to be interpreted as anything but a fib.
As to radiation on DNA... who says we're exposing people to radiation? We're putting the nuclear material in a specially designed bunker where it isn't going to touch you. What is your problem?
Actually, her email was backed up in a complete format.
The IT department that had the backup was not asked for it until alternative investigations found it.
The Learner situation is a scandal.
There are fake ones and real ones. The IRS scandal was a real one.
In those 3 years she approved ONE right of center political group for tax exempt status.
1
That's not a smoking gun. That's video and eye witness accounts of the shooting.
Case closed unfortunately. And I would much rather it have been a fake scandal. It is seriously troubling that an organization like the IRS is being used for political advocacy. That is not tolerable.