Do you really think the amount of oil used to transport vegetables (even multiple years-worth) is greater than that used to build those greenhouses? The great cost in shipping a bushel of tomatoes a few thousand miles isn't wrapped up in the oil, it's the logistics/storage/refrigeration/etc.
You seem to be overlooking a fairly crucial factor: Because the Model S has a halfway decent suspension and modern features such as traction control, the driver should be able to maneuver the car quickly enough to *avoid* a head-on collision. Why would you possibly think it's more important to optimize safety around an unlikely scenario like "head-on collision with a Humvee", than to avoid the accident altogether?
Also, I'm fairly certain tanks, semi-trucks and airplanes don't get to qualify for the "safest car ever" award, since, you know, they're not cars! Also, I think an airplane fares even worse than a typical passenger car in your contrived "head-on collision with a humvee" scenario.
I'm fairly certain that a roof that *doesn't* collapse in on the car's occupants during a rollover would be more of a "good thing for safety" than one which did.
Persona/BrowserID is a lot closer to OpenID than SAML or OAuth.
Doing SAML federation can be a bit of a nightmare, and AFAIK there's no "standard" way to do sort of on-demand federation between two entities (that is, if user using IdP A wants to visit service X, usually A and X generally need to already know about each other).
OAuth really isn't about *authentication*. It can be used for authn as sort of a side-effect, but it's really not its' intent.
As for OpenID (and OAuth and SAML, too), the big advantage of Persona/BrowserID is that your IdP doesn't actually know what sites you're visiting. If you take the additional step of using unique email addresses to sign in to each different site you visit, there's also no way for two different sites to know you're the same user (at least, based on your BrowserID "identity"... obviously there's other tricks they can employ).
When I first read about the Raspberry Pi I was excited because I thought they were going to recreate this boot to a BASIC interpreter-type of experience we used to have on Apple II's and TRS-80's and the like. That's the sort of experience that they claimed inspired the raspberry pi, and they claimed that sort of programming-based, learning-intensive experience was what they wanted the pi to be about.
So, I was very disappointed to see that by default, a raspberry pi really is "just a pc" that boots into your typical CLI, and the "getting started" instructions actually have the new user start up X right off the bat. Providing scratch and a python IDE are nice and all, but I feel like all the normal trappings of "just a pc" take focus away from the real point of the pi.
Agreed, but I think it's a hard issue to have a rational discussion about, without emotions outweighing reason. On the one hand, if society at large decides a genetic trait is undesirable, is it wrong to prevent people from screening for that trait? Heck, even if society decides a genetic trait is desirable, is it right to prevent people from screening out that trait for their own reasons? I know it's cliche or a platitude, but most of the time, determining right and wrong (to the extent that we could create effective rules or regulations) in these cases is really, really hard.
One potential objection to this is that you can't generally get most HD channels on a non-digital service tier. Probably for the very reason that they can charge you more for the same content by only providing on the digital tiers.
You know what? You're right! I should stop watching Top Gear and start driving million-dollar super cars myself! I don't know why this didn't occur to me earlier!
On the one hand, mineral claims have a long history and seem to have worked decently.
On the other hand, how do we prevent an unscrupulous company from doing just enough work to *claim* these asteroids, with no intention of actually following through and mining them. Then, acting as a rent-seeker when another company actually does try to mine the resources?
That our esteemed legislators say to themselves "Well, that's that, then! I guess it's pointless to ban high-capacity magazines." or "This is insidious! Alongside a high-capacity magazine ban, we should also ban 3D printing! Clearly it's a technology that will only be used by TERRORISTS!"
I think something like the latter is more likely, and I'm not even one of/.'s famed government-hating libertarian fundamentalists!
The plans & pricing page mentions that the $300 fee can be paid over the course of a year: "$300 construction fee (one time or 12 monthly payments of $25) + taxes and fees". (from https://fiber.google.com/plans/residential/)
"My cousin is dyslexic and has terrible trouble reading and doing mathematics, but he's sitting pretty on a pile of cash and he's great at his job."
Okay, I'll take your anecdote to the next level -- since your cousin is apparently rich, but dyslexic, obviously schools don't need to teach kids how to read, either. Anecdotes are fun!
I've only read the ars writeup, and not the paper itself, but here's the impression I get:
Using your stated setup, the apparent "violation of causality" from this experiment comes in that measurements showing that A & D are entangled happen *before* the entangling of B & C. So in a completely arbitrary sort of timeline-form:
0:00 - A & B are entangled. C & D are entangled. 0:01 - A is sent to Alice. D is sent to Bob. B & C are sent to Victor. 0:02 - Alice measures A. Bob measures D. 0:03 - Victor decides whether or not to entangle B & C.
In the cases where at 0:03 Victor decides to entangle B&C, the measurement taken at 0:02 shows A & D as entangled. In the cases where at 0:03 Victor decides *not* to entangle B&C,the measurement taken at 0:02 doesn't seem to show A&D as entangled.
From this, we get the apparent break in causality, in that a measurement taken at 0:02 is apparently affected by something that doesn't happen until 0:03.
I can't tell if you're being serious or not, especially with, " Even if it would turn out that people are too stupid in aggregate and would technically benefit from a despot or anything less that direct and absolute democracy."
At what point does "technically benefit" not equal better? I know this isn't exactly a single-factor situation, but since we're only talking about a single situation, when you say something is beneficial (or perhaps, *more* beneficial), that pretty much by definition means it's better.
And in my opinion, a 24-hour Athenian democracy like you seem to be advocating is great in the same world where communism is great or libertarianism is great : a utopia where every human is perfectly-informed and respectful of every other human. Maybe we'll get there one day, but we don't live in that world today.
I'd argue that prior to the last few years where smart phones have become incredibly popular, Sprint tended to offer some of the best/most advanced phones available (other carriers did as well), so your argument that they offered "the worst phones" seems completely wrong to me.
I don't know. The Soviets did some cool stuff with duct tape and bailing wire (Sputnik, for example!), but I'd hardly call them technological geniuses. If they could build aircraft carriers, there's no reason at all the Chinese couldn't. It seems more likely the Chinese just took a cheaper option in this case.
How much of that renewable energy is subsidized? Considering Spain's current budget issues, I hope not much, because otherwise the price of energy in Spain could be very unstable.
I'm certainly not anti-renewable, but nuclear energy is such an attractive alternative I hate seeing all the fear-mongering that goes on with it.
Additionally, the link you provided says that only 32% of Spain's electricity is generated from renewable sources, not "over half".
Slashdot Mirror
There'll be plenty enough weight to corner safely, even with a full carbon monocoque, for passenger car driving.
Extra downforce is really only needed on racing cars.
Do you really think the amount of oil used to transport vegetables (even multiple years-worth) is greater than that used to build those greenhouses? The great cost in shipping a bushel of tomatoes a few thousand miles isn't wrapped up in the oil, it's the logistics/storage/refrigeration/etc.
You seem to be overlooking a fairly crucial factor: Because the Model S has a halfway decent suspension and modern features such as traction control, the driver should be able to maneuver the car quickly enough to *avoid* a head-on collision. Why would you possibly think it's more important to optimize safety around an unlikely scenario like "head-on collision with a Humvee", than to avoid the accident altogether?
Also, I'm fairly certain tanks, semi-trucks and airplanes don't get to qualify for the "safest car ever" award, since, you know, they're not cars! Also, I think an airplane fares even worse than a typical passenger car in your contrived "head-on collision with a humvee" scenario.
I'm fairly certain that a roof that *doesn't* collapse in on the car's occupants during a rollover would be more of a "good thing for safety" than one which did.
Persona/BrowserID is a lot closer to OpenID than SAML or OAuth.
Doing SAML federation can be a bit of a nightmare, and AFAIK there's no "standard" way to do sort of on-demand federation between two entities (that is, if user using IdP A wants to visit service X, usually A and X generally need to already know about each other).
OAuth really isn't about *authentication*. It can be used for authn as sort of a side-effect, but it's really not its' intent.
As for OpenID (and OAuth and SAML, too), the big advantage of Persona/BrowserID is that your IdP doesn't actually know what sites you're visiting. If you take the additional step of using unique email addresses to sign in to each different site you visit, there's also no way for two different sites to know you're the same user (at least, based on your BrowserID "identity"... obviously there's other tricks they can employ).
When I first read about the Raspberry Pi I was excited because I thought they were going to recreate this boot to a BASIC interpreter-type of experience we used to have on Apple II's and TRS-80's and the like. That's the sort of experience that they claimed inspired the raspberry pi, and they claimed that sort of programming-based, learning-intensive experience was what they wanted the pi to be about.
So, I was very disappointed to see that by default, a raspberry pi really is "just a pc" that boots into your typical CLI, and the "getting started" instructions actually have the new user start up X right off the bat. Providing scratch and a python IDE are nice and all, but I feel like all the normal trappings of "just a pc" take focus away from the real point of the pi.
Agreed, but I think it's a hard issue to have a rational discussion about, without emotions outweighing reason. On the one hand, if society at large decides a genetic trait is undesirable, is it wrong to prevent people from screening for that trait? Heck, even if society decides a genetic trait is desirable, is it right to prevent people from screening out that trait for their own reasons? I know it's cliche or a platitude, but most of the time, determining right and wrong (to the extent that we could create effective rules or regulations) in these cases is really, really hard.
But with unlimited energy we could just build enormous refrigerators to cool things back down! Problem solved!
What are you talking about? The original submitter? Eran Hammer? The blog being linked to?
I honestly don't know what you're referring to -- could you explain for those of us who are out of the loop?
One potential objection to this is that you can't generally get most HD channels on a non-digital service tier. Probably for the very reason that they can charge you more for the same content by only providing on the digital tiers.
You know what? You're right! I should stop watching Top Gear and start driving million-dollar super cars myself! I don't know why this didn't occur to me earlier!
On the one hand, mineral claims have a long history and seem to have worked decently.
On the other hand, how do we prevent an unscrupulous company from doing just enough work to *claim* these asteroids, with no intention of actually following through and mining them. Then, acting as a rent-seeker when another company actually does try to mine the resources?
That our esteemed legislators say to themselves
"Well, that's that, then! I guess it's pointless to ban high-capacity magazines."
or
"This is insidious! Alongside a high-capacity magazine ban, we should also ban 3D printing! Clearly it's a technology that will only be used by TERRORISTS!"
I think something like the latter is more likely, and I'm not even one of /.'s famed government-hating libertarian fundamentalists!
The plans & pricing page mentions that the $300 fee can be paid over the course of a year:
"$300 construction fee (one time or 12 monthly payments of $25) + taxes and fees". (from https://fiber.google.com/plans/residential/)
"My cousin is dyslexic and has terrible trouble reading and doing mathematics, but he's sitting pretty on a pile of cash and he's great at his job."
Okay, I'll take your anecdote to the next level -- since your cousin is apparently rich, but dyslexic, obviously schools don't need to teach kids how to read, either. Anecdotes are fun!
Of course that means they have two identical people, so they have to kill the original.
Discussion of this sort of thing always reminds me of this great cartoon.
Always thought it was a Feynman quote, but I can't find evidence of that now.
Maybe it's just like this experiment -- Feynman hasn't actually said it yet.
I've only read the ars writeup, and not the paper itself, but here's the impression I get:
Using your stated setup, the apparent "violation of causality" from this experiment comes in that measurements showing that A & D are entangled happen *before* the entangling of B & C. So in a completely arbitrary sort of timeline-form:
0:00 - A & B are entangled. C & D are entangled.
0:01 - A is sent to Alice. D is sent to Bob. B & C are sent to Victor.
0:02 - Alice measures A. Bob measures D.
0:03 - Victor decides whether or not to entangle B & C.
In the cases where at 0:03 Victor decides to entangle B&C, the measurement taken at 0:02 shows A & D as entangled.
In the cases where at 0:03 Victor decides *not* to entangle B&C,the measurement taken at 0:02 doesn't seem to show A&D as entangled.
From this, we get the apparent break in causality, in that a measurement taken at 0:02 is apparently affected by something that doesn't happen until 0:03.
I can't tell if you're being serious or not, especially with, " Even if it would turn out that people are too stupid in aggregate and would technically benefit from a despot or anything less that direct and absolute democracy."
At what point does "technically benefit" not equal better? I know this isn't exactly a single-factor situation, but since we're only talking about a single situation, when you say something is beneficial (or perhaps, *more* beneficial), that pretty much by definition means it's better.
And in my opinion, a 24-hour Athenian democracy like you seem to be advocating is great in the same world where communism is great or libertarianism is great : a utopia where every human is perfectly-informed and respectful of every other human. Maybe we'll get there one day, but we don't live in that world today.
I'd argue that prior to the last few years where smart phones have become incredibly popular, Sprint tended to offer some of the best/most advanced phones available (other carriers did as well), so your argument that they offered "the worst phones" seems completely wrong to me.
Actually the market for new law school grads is pretty terrible right now, and outsourcing lawyer work is already happening.
I don't know. The Soviets did some cool stuff with duct tape and bailing wire (Sputnik, for example!), but I'd hardly call them technological geniuses. If they could build aircraft carriers, there's no reason at all the Chinese couldn't. It seems more likely the Chinese just took a cheaper option in this case.
How much of that renewable energy is subsidized? Considering Spain's current budget issues, I hope not much, because otherwise the price of energy in Spain could be very unstable.
I'm certainly not anti-renewable, but nuclear energy is such an attractive alternative I hate seeing all the fear-mongering that goes on with it.
Additionally, the link you provided says that only 32% of Spain's electricity is generated from renewable sources, not "over half".
It's not "tiny" compared to KCMO. KCK's population is about 150k, whereas KCMO's is ~500k.
H&R Block is actually in Kansas City, Missouri.