In order to carry a passenger for hire and make a profit you have to have your commercial ticket. Period.
Further nit pick...
As a private pilot you CAN share expenses with a passenger, but the emphasis is on "share" meaning that the pilot must have some reason, other than the passenger is paying, to go someplace. You cannot be paid for your time or collect a penny more than ACTUAL costs as a private pilot to take somebody (other than yourself) or something someplace. Unless the pilot is shouldering at least some of the costs, it's getting really close to the grey area, especially if you don't have any previous or ongoing relationship with your passenger.
So your life long friend can pay your expenses when you fly him out to go fishing someplace. You could even drop a bag off that he forgot on his trip to grandma's house and accept reimbursement of expenses. However, you cannot meet some stranger at the airport, collect a stack of cash and then transport them and their luggage someplace. You cannot run a business that involves flying people or cargo as a private pilot.
What I will look forward to is the influx of "make your 3 look like an S to the charging station" adapters that will flood ebay. Fuck you rich asshole, you can wait for that unwashed poor person to use the charger.
Yea, you know it won't take long to break that DRM code.... Can we say a quick flash upgrade to your Model 3's firmware and vola, free motion forever.
Running the AC does not cut your range in half, that's just made up. At most there's a 10% effect on range (heat or AC), and that's under pretty extreme conditions.
On a Tesla Model S you get an 80% charge in 40 minues, not a 75% charge in 45 minutes.
My point really is that range is limited and where I don't know the numbers exactly, there are things to consider. Your numbers clearly show this. Charging takes longer than pumping in gasoline and you get a whole lot less range for your trouble and time. So, instead of being stopped at the gas station for 5 min like me, you have to hang about for 40 and still get 3/4ths of a charge, which if you could get 200 miles on 100% charge (which only a *few* EV's can manage), you are going to get just over 150 miles, or say another 2 hours down the road. That's 2 hours and 40 min to get 150 miles (if you drive fast) over my 2 hours and 3 min for the same distance.
So... My 4 hour drive will take you nearly 6, roughly and assuming you end up with the same range in you battery that you started with. You can improve this by stopping more often and not sitting around for the whole 80%, but rarely are there chargers often enough to make that work. But nobody really drives EV's for distance except on well known routes between major cities. If you happen to be going someplace else, forget it or plan on pushing a lot. Which is the net effect of the necessary charging infrastructure not existing to put EV's on equal footing with gasoline powered conveyances. Nope, I don't want an EV due to convenience and I really don't see the benefit of them overall, even to lower carbon emissions they are largely ineffective.
Of course your mileage may (and apparently does) vary.
When he purchased the vehicle, he worked about 5 miles from home but was recently forced to change jobs. When he changed employers he asked that question and the new employer indicated they intended to provide chargers at the new facility. They didn't, even though they where shown on the plans. So, he's kind of stuck, not having much luck in his attempts to sell it, not being able to afford to trade and not interested in making too much of an issue out of it because he likes the new job.
But my point is that range issues are real and a significant problem for some. All what you are used to I suppose. We used to be limited to about 40 miles in a stage coach on a good day. Now folks routinely do that much distance while drinking their morning cup of Joe fussing about how bad the traffic is because the speed is under 50 MPH..
Glad the useful range of less than 180 miles works for you. It doesn't for me.
I know a guy who owns a Leaf that sits in his garage because the 50 mile round trip to work is a bit too risky even though the EPA says it goes 75 miles/charge.
1. You are going to stop more often to recharge than refuel. Your average gasoline car goes in excess of 300 miles between stops, an electric is lucky to get you 200 on a full charge and you can count on just over 100 miles on 75% charge when you need to run the environmental controls to stay comfortable. I figure you will have to stop between 2 and 3 times more often to recharge than my minivan on that road trip.
2. You will stop longer. I can fill up my minivan, hit the bathroom and the soda fountain in about 10 min, or eat a meal in 30 and be back on the road for 300 miles. IF you can find a "super charger" your electric will need about 45 min or more to get you to 75% charge and another 125 miles or so and if you don't mind waiting 1.5 hours or so you might get nearly 200 miles out of that charge. A full 250 mile 100% charge will usually take a couple of hours or more. If you do not have access to a super charger, you can figure on 4 to 10 hours to charge from a 15A extension cord.
Please don't undersell the difference here. They are significant.
How is Elon Musk any less of a con artist than Elizabeth Holmes? I fail to see a difference.
Oh come on. The problem here is that Tesla set up the expectation that if you buy one of their cars, you got free access to these charging stations. Now everybody expects this from Tesla because it was baked into the price of the car and Tesla wasn't really out to make a profit anyway. Well, now Tesla wants to become profitable so things will have to change and their cars will have to be competitively priced so some of their cost drivers need to be addressed.
It's obvious that Tesla *cannot* continue such arrangements unless they roll a significant cost into the cost of the cars they sell. The problem is Tesla needs to market this better, reset the customer's expatiations. If Musk has any issue it's that he didn't think though the PR of this before offering an answer to the question, not that it wasn't painfully obvious what the answer needed to be.
Yea, those Mars rovers are *really* speedy using that approach. Took one of them more than a decade to drive about 26 miles...
I'm sure you realize this, but there simply isn't enough energy from the sun hitting your car to do much traveling with. You might be able to keep the battery topped off or a bit more using the energy hitting the car, but you certainly are NOT going to be driving around town on a sunny day on the energy you collect.
And the answer was, sure, but THEY (the unwashed poor masses who buy the Model 3) will have to pay for it, while you (the rich washed) will still get yours for free. But it's going to be hard to unset the precedent set by Tesla and getting access to free super charging. It's expected now, buy a Tesla and get instant access to all this infrastructure so you can actually go someplace in that expensive set of wheels. (Not that you can actually GO anyplace really interesting on this infrastructure last time I checked.)
Face it, the charging stations where build only to answer the basic objection to how far can you go on a charge in that neat electric car of yours. Why have a car that only goes at most 200 miles or so before you have to park it for a couple of hours to do it again....No thank you anyway. Where I currently live about 15 miles from work and could easily do a 30 mile daily commute in an all electric, I'm not interested because I cannot afford a car that's only good for the daily trips to the office. I need one that can go over the river and through the woods to grandma's house with the wife and kiddies in one setting and return on occasion and I cannot afford two vehicles where one will do, so hello gas powered Mini-Van with a DVD player.
If you are running 7, 8, 8.1 and don't care about Media Center (you know who you are) and don't depend on the parental controls, knock yourself out and install 10 if you want too. I'm no windows fan (actually quite the opposite) but if you are running an older version of windows and won't loose support for some necessary application by moving up, by all means go for it, if for no other reason than to stay with the OS which will be supported the longest. I will warn you that a couple of things change in the UI and a number of things have moved around (to varying degrees) since 7, but it's not that hard to make the change.
However, be warned that they took away a couple of things that I've noticed. Windows Media Center is gone after 8.1, if you use it, there are no other fully compatible replacements which can record and play protected content that I know of (yet). Also, I was upset to find out that they ripped out a lot of the parental controls which used to come standard and which where useful for limiting access times for my kids. There may be other solutions for this now if you really needed it but my kids where getting old enough it didn't matter.
Generally the reduction of moving parts is a good thing and the distributor points/condenser ignition system has a number of moving parts. So in cases where you are removing mechanical assemblies and putting in parts that don't move, it's a good thing. For instance, our fleet of Nuclear missiles have had their original mechanical gyros replaced with laser ring versions, which are more reliable because they don't have moving parts.
However, electronic ignition systems are necessary for reasons other than being robust. They are required to meet emissions standards and where developed for that purpose, not because they where more reliable. Actually, they initially where not all that reliable as memory serves. They became so because the CAFE standards started to push minimum warranty periods on emission controls, making it cost effective for manufacturers to design robust systems because the government mandated that such systems had to work for a minimum number of miles and years.
WOPR or really the idea behind it is EXACTLY why we use 1950's technology still in our nuclear silos.
Think about it. If you own an operational nuclear tipped missile, your primary concern is that it is only going to detonate when and where YOU want it too. Also figure that you realize that this thing is going to be sitting for decades, hopefully with a minimum of mess and fuss over things like maintenance and refurbishment. It may sit there for multiple decades, but it HAS to work when you push the button under adverse operating conditions. This means you need a really robust system that's easy to take care of.
ALL of these requirements mean you will choose the most simple design that fulfills your needs. The one with the least parts, especially those parts that move, and once you have a proven design, you are going to be loathed to change it just because it's out dated. Once it works and proven there will be NO changes without some seriously good reasons. Newer is not always better. You don't mess with a design that works, just because it's old.
Couple this with the fact that the government is where the obsolete is always in style and it's never simple (nor cheap) to change anything and you can see why stuff like this takes on a life of its own. Why change it? It works and we don't need anything else that's better.
One more thing that comes to mind.. Nuclear weapon development is subject to international treaty oblations. I don't pretend to know all the details, but I'm fairly sure that we cannot just go out and replace our current crop of nuclear missiles w/o having issues with some treaties.... Not that Putin could do much about it if we unilaterally decided to do something, but he'd sure be crying foul and loudly if we did.. Not to mention the political fall out from that...
Not really. The Pi is purpose built as a way to train programmers and is not well suited for interfacing to the outside world. Sure, you can buy add on cards that do things like buffer the I/O pins and provide power and the like, but If you are a business concern, there are much better suited devices than the Pi to consider which are from manufacturers who are interested in the same issues you are. If you end up using the Pi, you will be stuck re-engineering the thing to do just about anything I can imagine is useful commercially, and I can imagine a lot.
Say, for instance, you had a "smart appliance" idea where you where trying to add some kind of smart display to a kitchen appliance, put it on the customer's WiFi network and do some kind of wizardry. Yes, you could use your Pi, drop on a pre-made touch screen, hack up some user interfaces, but try doing that and then adding a couple of channels of inputs for a couple of sensors and a couple of outputs to turn stuff on and off and you are doing some serious prototype design just to get the Pi off the ground. There are prototype ready kits out there from Intel (and other chip makers) which may be a few thousand dollars so hobbyist's don't use them, but are purpose built for this kind of work and well worth the cost for the commercial concern. They come with pre-designed and proven interfaces you can use off the shelf saving time and money. You can use a Pi, but it's going to cost you.
So, I'm not dissing the Pi, it's great for what it's built for. I'm just saying that it's not really the proper tool for designing and prototyping embedded computer systems. It wasn't built for that...
Will the battery last very long on my Pi running Android?
Will there be support for any cellular devices so I can talk, text and/or run data any time soon?
Will it work outside when it's 110 in the shade?
Face it, the Pi is not much more than a toy, a cheap learning device used to teach in places where the cost of even a low end computer is too much. Great for teaching and learning, not so great as a basis of any kind of practical commercial hardware design.
Adding Android to the stable of operating systems you can load up on a Pi is more about learning what porting an operating system takes, and less about the applications one might develop, install and/or run on it. So this is a win for the student and hobbyist, but not worth much beyond being a rapid prototype test bed for the commercial world.
BTW... I'm fully aware that the Pi is not generally run on batteries... Not that you can't, only that it's not commonly done that way because it usually depends on a 5V supply, which is hard to get from the modern mass produced batteries of today...
The positive side for keeping it is, that the most likely source of an outbreak is the very same samples, thus a vaccine will be possible if it comes from those sources.
The negative side is such an outbreak wouldn't even happen should the stockpiles be destroyed.
Not exactly true in a "you bet your life" way. We simply do not know for sure that smallpox has been eradicated totally from the environment and will not appear again some day. There are a LOT of bodies around which suffered from smallpox and there are possible climates where these cadavers might be well enough preserved that they could infect the living. Because we don't really know where these may be, we cannot be sure we've destroyed them all.
Then there is the possible application of the virus to medical treatments. A virus is a clever machine, designed to modify a cell's genetic activity in favor of it's own. As a device designed to deliver specific genetic material to a host's cells it has no equal. Who knows when the use of smallpox as a basis for a drug delivery system might have positive therapeutic application? It would be irresponsible to just destroy the laboratory stockpiles of this virus. We should keep the virus in the lab for study and research.
Also, we keep the virus around, along with a stock pile of vaccine just in case. We require anybody who is at risk of exposure in the lab to be vaccinated and monitored. Plus, we simply must maintain a defensive posture on this, keeping a bit of vaccine ready to deal with any possible weapon (or terror)
use of the virus and that means keeping the virus in the lab to be used for vaccine production.
There IS "Evidence" here Mark, now how much that evidence proves is the question being asked. So your statement is really a lie, or, to be charitable about this, just not true.
What you should have said is there is "no proof" or even "no evidence that proves" but I guess because you are really involved in a PR conflict, you need to keep saying what your Public Relations folks are telling you to say. However, in this case, your PR folks need to mince your words a bit more carefully.
Not that I care about the allegations anyway. Who really cares if Facebook manipulates the news I see or not? It's a free country and they are free to conduct their business as they see fit.
If you are not using Git in a distributive fashion, then *how* are you using it? Locally? Shared file system?
As in, not everyone operating on their own forks and pushing to a single repository as opposed to doing pull requests.
I wonder if you fully understand what Git is doing even using your workflow, but that's another issue...
The issue here isn't branching and forking persay, but avoiding conflicts by making it necessary to "checkout" (as in lock for your exclusive modification and NOT in the meaning used by Git) a file before you edit using features built INTO the tool. Like I said, you can approximate this kind of thing using a combination of external tools and/or administrative processes, but it's not native to Git.
Also, don't get me wrong. Where I critique Git, I'm not dead set on discouraging folks from using it. Like any tool, it has it's place, and for what the Kernel project uses it for it's great. However, in most corporate development environments I've seen and been a programmer in, Git is not well suited because the workflow in these environments is different from what the tool assumes. Not doing file locking and accepting the mess that constant merging of unknown code from unknown programmers just is a non-starter for most commercial development efforts where all the programmers sit in a couple of cube farms and work from 9 to 5 weekdays.. It's not that you cannot get Git to work in such environments, only that you might want to think about other tools which are more suited to the development process model you plan to use.
If you are not using Git in a distributive fashion, then *how* are you using it? Locally? Shared file system?
If so, then you don't need to lock files to avoid merging your code as there likely is but one person (you) making changes anyway.
If you are trying to share a work space, say on an NFS share or something, then using Git with multiple developers in the same file space is a really really bad idea that's going to bite you sooner rather than later.... My advice to you in this case is adopt the distributed approach and make the common repository a "bare" one.
Also, understand that my critique is that Git doesn't support file locking, not that there are not schemes which can be used to approximate this. In fact, the idea you suggest really doesn't do what I want in a multiple developer world where running in a distributive work flow which is unavoidable when using Git.
The world has already moved on to Git which is essentially perfect nowadays.
Wait a min... You are trying to be funny right? I think the author of git puts it this way, "it does exactly the opposite of CVS whenever possible..." We all know everybody hated CVS.
Slashdot Mirror
In order to carry a passenger for hire and make a profit you have to have your commercial ticket. Period.
Further nit pick...
As a private pilot you CAN share expenses with a passenger, but the emphasis is on "share" meaning that the pilot must have some reason, other than the passenger is paying, to go someplace. You cannot be paid for your time or collect a penny more than ACTUAL costs as a private pilot to take somebody (other than yourself) or something someplace. Unless the pilot is shouldering at least some of the costs, it's getting really close to the grey area, especially if you don't have any previous or ongoing relationship with your passenger.
So your life long friend can pay your expenses when you fly him out to go fishing someplace. You could even drop a bag off that he forgot on his trip to grandma's house and accept reimbursement of expenses. However, you cannot meet some stranger at the airport, collect a stack of cash and then transport them and their luggage someplace. You cannot run a business that involves flying people or cargo as a private pilot.
What I will look forward to is the influx of "make your 3 look like an S to the charging station" adapters that will flood ebay. Fuck you rich asshole, you can wait for that unwashed poor person to use the charger.
Yea, you know it won't take long to break that DRM code.... Can we say a quick flash upgrade to your Model 3's firmware and vola, free motion forever.
Running the AC does not cut your range in half, that's just made up. At most there's a 10% effect on range (heat or AC), and that's under pretty extreme conditions.
On a Tesla Model S you get an 80% charge in 40 minues, not a 75% charge in 45 minutes.
My point really is that range is limited and where I don't know the numbers exactly, there are things to consider. Your numbers clearly show this. Charging takes longer than pumping in gasoline and you get a whole lot less range for your trouble and time. So, instead of being stopped at the gas station for 5 min like me, you have to hang about for 40 and still get 3/4ths of a charge, which if you could get 200 miles on 100% charge (which only a *few* EV's can manage), you are going to get just over 150 miles, or say another 2 hours down the road. That's 2 hours and 40 min to get 150 miles (if you drive fast) over my 2 hours and 3 min for the same distance.
So... My 4 hour drive will take you nearly 6, roughly and assuming you end up with the same range in you battery that you started with. You can improve this by stopping more often and not sitting around for the whole 80%, but rarely are there chargers often enough to make that work. But nobody really drives EV's for distance except on well known routes between major cities. If you happen to be going someplace else, forget it or plan on pushing a lot. Which is the net effect of the necessary charging infrastructure not existing to put EV's on equal footing with gasoline powered conveyances. Nope, I don't want an EV due to convenience and I really don't see the benefit of them overall, even to lower carbon emissions they are largely ineffective.
Of course your mileage may (and apparently does) vary.
When he purchased the vehicle, he worked about 5 miles from home but was recently forced to change jobs. When he changed employers he asked that question and the new employer indicated they intended to provide chargers at the new facility. They didn't, even though they where shown on the plans. So, he's kind of stuck, not having much luck in his attempts to sell it, not being able to afford to trade and not interested in making too much of an issue out of it because he likes the new job.
But my point is that range issues are real and a significant problem for some. All what you are used to I suppose. We used to be limited to about 40 miles in a stage coach on a good day. Now folks routinely do that much distance while drinking their morning cup of Joe fussing about how bad the traffic is because the speed is under 50 MPH..
Glad the useful range of less than 180 miles works for you. It doesn't for me.
I know a guy who owns a Leaf that sits in his garage because the 50 mile round trip to work is a bit too risky even though the EPA says it goes 75 miles/charge.
There is ONE significant difference, no TWO..
1. You are going to stop more often to recharge than refuel. Your average gasoline car goes in excess of 300 miles between stops, an electric is lucky to get you 200 on a full charge and you can count on just over 100 miles on 75% charge when you need to run the environmental controls to stay comfortable. I figure you will have to stop between 2 and 3 times more often to recharge than my minivan on that road trip.
2. You will stop longer. I can fill up my minivan, hit the bathroom and the soda fountain in about 10 min, or eat a meal in 30 and be back on the road for 300 miles. IF you can find a "super charger" your electric will need about 45 min or more to get you to 75% charge and another 125 miles or so and if you don't mind waiting 1.5 hours or so you might get nearly 200 miles out of that charge. A full 250 mile 100% charge will usually take a couple of hours or more. If you do not have access to a super charger, you can figure on 4 to 10 hours to charge from a 15A extension cord.
Please don't undersell the difference here. They are significant.
How is Elon Musk any less of a con artist than Elizabeth Holmes? I fail to see a difference.
Oh come on. The problem here is that Tesla set up the expectation that if you buy one of their cars, you got free access to these charging stations. Now everybody expects this from Tesla because it was baked into the price of the car and Tesla wasn't really out to make a profit anyway. Well, now Tesla wants to become profitable so things will have to change and their cars will have to be competitively priced so some of their cost drivers need to be addressed.
It's obvious that Tesla *cannot* continue such arrangements unless they roll a significant cost into the cost of the cars they sell. The problem is Tesla needs to market this better, reset the customer's expatiations. If Musk has any issue it's that he didn't think though the PR of this before offering an answer to the question, not that it wasn't painfully obvious what the answer needed to be.
Yea, those Mars rovers are *really* speedy using that approach. Took one of them more than a decade to drive about 26 miles...
I'm sure you realize this, but there simply isn't enough energy from the sun hitting your car to do much traveling with. You might be able to keep the battery topped off or a bit more using the energy hitting the car, but you certainly are NOT going to be driving around town on a sunny day on the energy you collect.
And the answer was, sure, but THEY (the unwashed poor masses who buy the Model 3) will have to pay for it, while you (the rich washed) will still get yours for free. But it's going to be hard to unset the precedent set by Tesla and getting access to free super charging. It's expected now, buy a Tesla and get instant access to all this infrastructure so you can actually go someplace in that expensive set of wheels. (Not that you can actually GO anyplace really interesting on this infrastructure last time I checked.)
Face it, the charging stations where build only to answer the basic objection to how far can you go on a charge in that neat electric car of yours. Why have a car that only goes at most 200 miles or so before you have to park it for a couple of hours to do it again....No thank you anyway. Where I currently live about 15 miles from work and could easily do a 30 mile daily commute in an all electric, I'm not interested because I cannot afford a car that's only good for the daily trips to the office. I need one that can go over the river and through the woods to grandma's house with the wife and kiddies in one setting and return on occasion and I cannot afford two vehicles where one will do, so hello gas powered Mini-Van with a DVD player.
You forget the toll booth in the middle just before the rest stop.... Local currency, no credit and correct change ONLY!
So, what about chocolate and Swiss cheese? Are they fake too?
Somebody call IKEA and let them know we have the truth... All those flat boxes come from a warehouse in Ohio....
Oh the humanity!
If you are running 7, 8, 8.1 and don't care about Media Center (you know who you are) and don't depend on the parental controls, knock yourself out and install 10 if you want too. I'm no windows fan (actually quite the opposite) but if you are running an older version of windows and won't loose support for some necessary application by moving up, by all means go for it, if for no other reason than to stay with the OS which will be supported the longest. I will warn you that a couple of things change in the UI and a number of things have moved around (to varying degrees) since 7, but it's not that hard to make the change.
However, be warned that they took away a couple of things that I've noticed. Windows Media Center is gone after 8.1, if you use it, there are no other fully compatible replacements which can record and play protected content that I know of (yet). Also, I was upset to find out that they ripped out a lot of the parental controls which used to come standard and which where useful for limiting access times for my kids. There may be other solutions for this now if you really needed it but my kids where getting old enough it didn't matter.
Stay up with the times, let it install....
Go read the book... The word we are all converging on is "tolerance"
So is that transparent enough for you?
George Orwell was right, he was just a man before his time... He should have titled his book 2016...
Generally the reduction of moving parts is a good thing and the distributor points/condenser ignition system has a number of moving parts. So in cases where you are removing mechanical assemblies and putting in parts that don't move, it's a good thing. For instance, our fleet of Nuclear missiles have had their original mechanical gyros replaced with laser ring versions, which are more reliable because they don't have moving parts.
However, electronic ignition systems are necessary for reasons other than being robust. They are required to meet emissions standards and where developed for that purpose, not because they where more reliable. Actually, they initially where not all that reliable as memory serves. They became so because the CAFE standards started to push minimum warranty periods on emission controls, making it cost effective for manufacturers to design robust systems because the government mandated that such systems had to work for a minimum number of miles and years.
WOPR or really the idea behind it is EXACTLY why we use 1950's technology still in our nuclear silos.
Think about it. If you own an operational nuclear tipped missile, your primary concern is that it is only going to detonate when and where YOU want it too. Also figure that you realize that this thing is going to be sitting for decades, hopefully with a minimum of mess and fuss over things like maintenance and refurbishment. It may sit there for multiple decades, but it HAS to work when you push the button under adverse operating conditions. This means you need a really robust system that's easy to take care of.
ALL of these requirements mean you will choose the most simple design that fulfills your needs. The one with the least parts, especially those parts that move, and once you have a proven design, you are going to be loathed to change it just because it's out dated. Once it works and proven there will be NO changes without some seriously good reasons. Newer is not always better. You don't mess with a design that works, just because it's old.
Couple this with the fact that the government is where the obsolete is always in style and it's never simple (nor cheap) to change anything and you can see why stuff like this takes on a life of its own. Why change it? It works and we don't need anything else that's better.
One more thing that comes to mind.. Nuclear weapon development is subject to international treaty oblations. I don't pretend to know all the details, but I'm fairly sure that we cannot just go out and replace our current crop of nuclear missiles w/o having issues with some treaties.... Not that Putin could do much about it if we unilaterally decided to do something, but he'd sure be crying foul and loudly if we did.. Not to mention the political fall out from that...
Not really. The Pi is purpose built as a way to train programmers and is not well suited for interfacing to the outside world. Sure, you can buy add on cards that do things like buffer the I/O pins and provide power and the like, but If you are a business concern, there are much better suited devices than the Pi to consider which are from manufacturers who are interested in the same issues you are. If you end up using the Pi, you will be stuck re-engineering the thing to do just about anything I can imagine is useful commercially, and I can imagine a lot.
Say, for instance, you had a "smart appliance" idea where you where trying to add some kind of smart display to a kitchen appliance, put it on the customer's WiFi network and do some kind of wizardry. Yes, you could use your Pi, drop on a pre-made touch screen, hack up some user interfaces, but try doing that and then adding a couple of channels of inputs for a couple of sensors and a couple of outputs to turn stuff on and off and you are doing some serious prototype design just to get the Pi off the ground. There are prototype ready kits out there from Intel (and other chip makers) which may be a few thousand dollars so hobbyist's don't use them, but are purpose built for this kind of work and well worth the cost for the commercial concern. They come with pre-designed and proven interfaces you can use off the shelf saving time and money. You can use a Pi, but it's going to cost you.
So, I'm not dissing the Pi, it's great for what it's built for. I'm just saying that it's not really the proper tool for designing and prototyping embedded computer systems. It wasn't built for that...
Will the battery last very long on my Pi running Android?
Will there be support for any cellular devices so I can talk, text and/or run data any time soon?
Will it work outside when it's 110 in the shade?
Face it, the Pi is not much more than a toy, a cheap learning device used to teach in places where the cost of even a low end computer is too much. Great for teaching and learning, not so great as a basis of any kind of practical commercial hardware design.
Adding Android to the stable of operating systems you can load up on a Pi is more about learning what porting an operating system takes, and less about the applications one might develop, install and/or run on it. So this is a win for the student and hobbyist, but not worth much beyond being a rapid prototype test bed for the commercial world.
BTW... I'm fully aware that the Pi is not generally run on batteries... Not that you can't, only that it's not commonly done that way because it usually depends on a 5V supply, which is hard to get from the modern mass produced batteries of today...
The positive side for keeping it is, that the most likely source of an outbreak is the very same samples, thus a vaccine will be possible if it comes from those sources.
The negative side is such an outbreak wouldn't even happen should the stockpiles be destroyed.
Not exactly true in a "you bet your life" way. We simply do not know for sure that smallpox has been eradicated totally from the environment and will not appear again some day. There are a LOT of bodies around which suffered from smallpox and there are possible climates where these cadavers might be well enough preserved that they could infect the living. Because we don't really know where these may be, we cannot be sure we've destroyed them all.
Then there is the possible application of the virus to medical treatments. A virus is a clever machine, designed to modify a cell's genetic activity in favor of it's own. As a device designed to deliver specific genetic material to a host's cells it has no equal. Who knows when the use of smallpox as a basis for a drug delivery system might have positive therapeutic application? It would be irresponsible to just destroy the laboratory stockpiles of this virus. We should keep the virus in the lab for study and research.
Also, we keep the virus around, along with a stock pile of vaccine just in case. We require anybody who is at risk of exposure in the lab to be vaccinated and monitored. Plus, we simply must maintain a defensive posture on this, keeping a bit of vaccine ready to deal with any possible weapon (or terror) use of the virus and that means keeping the virus in the lab to be used for vaccine production.
No, it's best to keep it.
Hey, you are all full of soot, you need to clean that mess up!
There IS "Evidence" here Mark, now how much that evidence proves is the question being asked. So your statement is really a lie, or, to be charitable about this, just not true.
What you should have said is there is "no proof" or even "no evidence that proves" but I guess because you are really involved in a PR conflict, you need to keep saying what your Public Relations folks are telling you to say. However, in this case, your PR folks need to mince your words a bit more carefully.
Not that I care about the allegations anyway. Who really cares if Facebook manipulates the news I see or not? It's a free country and they are free to conduct their business as they see fit.
What do you call a 100 copies of ROSS being thrown into the sea? A good start.....
Why won't the sharks eat the ROSS software licenses? Professional curtsey.
And last but NOT least...
How do you know ROSS is lying to you? The curser is moving.
As in, not everyone operating on their own forks and pushing to a single repository as opposed to doing pull requests.
I wonder if you fully understand what Git is doing even using your workflow, but that's another issue...
The issue here isn't branching and forking persay, but avoiding conflicts by making it necessary to "checkout" (as in lock for your exclusive modification and NOT in the meaning used by Git) a file before you edit using features built INTO the tool. Like I said, you can approximate this kind of thing using a combination of external tools and/or administrative processes, but it's not native to Git.
Also, don't get me wrong. Where I critique Git, I'm not dead set on discouraging folks from using it. Like any tool, it has it's place, and for what the Kernel project uses it for it's great. However, in most corporate development environments I've seen and been a programmer in, Git is not well suited because the workflow in these environments is different from what the tool assumes. Not doing file locking and accepting the mess that constant merging of unknown code from unknown programmers just is a non-starter for most commercial development efforts where all the programmers sit in a couple of cube farms and work from 9 to 5 weekdays.. It's not that you cannot get Git to work in such environments, only that you might want to think about other tools which are more suited to the development process model you plan to use.
If you are not using Git in a distributive fashion, then *how* are you using it? Locally? Shared file system?
If so, then you don't need to lock files to avoid merging your code as there likely is but one person (you) making changes anyway.
If you are trying to share a work space, say on an NFS share or something, then using Git with multiple developers in the same file space is a really really bad idea that's going to bite you sooner rather than later.... My advice to you in this case is adopt the distributed approach and make the common repository a "bare" one.
Also, understand that my critique is that Git doesn't support file locking, not that there are not schemes which can be used to approximate this. In fact, the idea you suggest really doesn't do what I want in a multiple developer world where running in a distributive work flow which is unavoidable when using Git.
The world has already moved on to Git which is essentially perfect nowadays.
Wait a min... You are trying to be funny right? I think the author of git puts it this way, "it does exactly the opposite of CVS whenever possible..." We all know everybody hated CVS.