If he was setup, why would he conveniently always go to THAT stall?
Leonard: That was fast.
Beverly: Oh, the middle stall was occupied. I'll have to try again later.
Sheldon: That's totally understandable. In bladder voiding, as in real estate, it's location, location, location.
The problem is Apple always saddles these machines with displays that are so high res, you cant run anything 3D at the native resolution. I wish they would match up 3D hardware to actually drive the displays they put out.
So pixel-double your games and run at the same resolution the competition does.
Does this mean that President Fiorina will cut off ties to Saudi Arabia once elected? Didn't think so....
No, no, no...you see, she's not criticizing Tim or Hilary for their stances. She's criticizing them for doing business with people that don't share their stances.
Fiorina, on the other hand, hates both fags and women. Hence, she's not a hypocrite herself for being FROM Silicon Valley or having done just as much business with China. So it's all good!
Well, then she is a hypocrite for having done business with countries where gay people have rights.
Turbo engines were complex machines whose layout limited the ground effect 'tunnels' under the car. They were an emerging technology and so they were difficult and expensive to develop and build and make reliable. It was mostly manufacturer-supported teams, such as Renault, Ferrari and Alfa Romeo which took that route. In contrast, the cheap, reliable and narrow Ford-Cosworth DFV engine, still used by most teams more than a decade after its introduction, lent itself well to highly efficient ground effect aerodynamics.
So which of the two technologies is found in more production cars today?
Cars are very complex machines that can have loads of things go amiss with them without rendering them undrivable, and can have loads of other things go wrong while in operation. You're correct that it's safe to assume everything will be recorded, but I expect equipment failures will plague first-generation autonomous cars once they're old and the tolerances have loosened up. Steering, tires, brakes, suspension alignment, all things that will lead the computer astray as it's attempting to self-drive.
If the computer still works, it will realize that the parts don't operate at full capacity anymore, and will drive to account for that - including refusing to drive when it can't do it safely. Including when self-analysis shows itself isn't working anymore. Just like cars today will stop or only allow driving at low speed when they detect a problem.
Yes, but you seem to miss the point.
If the Nazis would live right now, like Boko Haman or ISS, they would buy an electric modern day mainframe and do their dirty deeds with them.
So Boko Haram buys their mainframes from whom? And no, I didn't miss that you had no fucking point.
The next culmination point was achieved in 1995, when Dickmanns re-engineered autonomous S-Class Mercedes-Benz took a 1000 mile trip from Munich in Bavaria to Copenhagen in Denmark and back, using saccadic computer vision and transputers to react in real time. The robot achieved speeds exceeding 175 km/h on the German Autobahn, with a mean time between human interventions of 9 km. In traffic it executed manoeuvres to pass other cars. Despite being a research system without emphasis on long distance reliability, it drove up to 158 km without any human intervention.
Using a USB hub is like distributing a garden hose to many nozzles. When you turn them all on, the spray from each one slows to a trickle.
In the case of of USB 3, the trickle would burst your USB 2 hoses, and fill several mass storage hoses. Wasn't that the point of USB 3? Or were all the USB fanboys lying?
This is why I am a PC. Not a Mac (paraphrased in the commercials)
When something goes obsolete I replace.
In 2013 I got my first SSD in my 2010 AMD phenom II. Then a dual SSD in raid. Then an i7 4770k. Then a another SSD raid. New video card and last a new workstation class computer.
With a mac it is soldered on. Throw away and buy anew.
Yeah, buying everything but the case, floppy (I bet you still have a floppy) and the big, inefficient power supply new makes for such a cheaper buy.
I swapped my old Core 2 Duo E7200 (2.53) O/Ced to 3.8 with an OCZ Agility2 SSD for an i3 with a Kingston SSDnow 300 (*old* retired machine that was given to my dad). Altough the new machine boots way faster, and the new SSD is about twice as fast in benchmarks (even if low-end), I find it faster, but not *blew me out of my chair* faster.
Once you go from HDD to SSD, even the cheapest lowest performing SSD is gonna be much faster than anything with spinning platters.
True, that is simply "diminishing returns". Just going from a HDD to ANY SSD will make your computer incredibly faster, but then going to any faster SSD will not give the same benefits, because that one only will be faster on continuous access (like copying large files). Booting the OS or accessing small random files will not benefit much anymore. So going for a super expensive SSD will only be worth it if a.) you read/write lots of LARGE files (e.g. movie editing) or b.) need the long-term reliability of a SSD designed for multi-year writing of tons of data.
I bet you stuck to ATA for your hard drives, because you were used to floppys, and those ATA dries were soooo much faster, everything beyond was just diminishing returns.
3. 90% are the posts seem to cite Skeptical Science in order to prove their point.
And you're assuming without evaluation that all skeptical science is wrong and all non-skeptical science is not. Are you totally dense? There is no non-skeptical science. All science must be skeptical. Because some IPCC stooges are not, we have the problem we have!
4. Skeptical Science is run by a Cartoonist.
Eh, cartoonists are mostly very sharp en perceptive. Able to see aspects of a situation and portray that which many other don't see right away. Also, if you have only ever read one "skeptical" scientist, no wonder you're in the dark!
I had to laugh so hard reading this. I'm not going to spoil it for you, Mr. Skeptic.
IBM knew exactly what Germany was doing with them. And it was against the law to sell to Germany. IBM mastered of skirting both the laws of the US and Germany, – to get tabulators into Germany and the profits out.
They didn't need to get tabulators into Germany - they were build there.
Which didn't happen. Hitler ran for President, and lost to von Hindenburg. The National Socialists managed to get about 40% of the Reichstag, not a majority but certainly a very important party. Hitler was then appointed to the office of Chancellor, and took over from there.
Actually, in the election after which he became Chancellor, the Nazis only had 33% of the votes.
Slashdot Mirror
If he was setup, why would he conveniently always go to THAT stall?
Leonard: That was fast.
Beverly: Oh, the middle stall was occupied. I'll have to try again later.
Sheldon: That's totally understandable. In bladder voiding, as in real estate, it's location, location, location.
Or is it leather glued to a plastic shell?
...and are willing to accept a thicker phone to get them?
The real question is: are you willing to carry a phone notably heavier?
With LCD scaling artefacts.
At twice the resolution? Are you some kind of retard?
The problem is Apple always saddles these machines with displays that are so high res, you cant run anything 3D at the native resolution. I wish they would match up 3D hardware to actually drive the displays they put out.
So pixel-double your games and run at the same resolution the competition does.
Does this mean that President Fiorina will cut off ties to Saudi Arabia once elected? Didn't think so....
No, no, no...you see, she's not criticizing Tim or Hilary for their stances. She's criticizing them for doing business with people that don't share their stances.
Fiorina, on the other hand, hates both fags and women. Hence, she's not a hypocrite herself for being FROM Silicon Valley or having done just as much business with China. So it's all good!
Well, then she is a hypocrite for having done business with countries where gay people have rights.
One could say that Ewan McGregor and Liam Neeson have done ok since then.
Christopher Lee also did okay - even in a franchise.
Turbo engines were complex machines whose layout limited the ground effect 'tunnels' under the car. They were an emerging technology and so they were difficult and expensive to develop and build and make reliable. It was mostly manufacturer-supported teams, such as Renault, Ferrari and Alfa Romeo which took that route. In contrast, the cheap, reliable and narrow Ford-Cosworth DFV engine, still used by most teams more than a decade after its introduction, lent itself well to highly efficient ground effect aerodynamics.
So which of the two technologies is found in more production cars today?
I'm hoping large corporations get interested. Right now, I understand all cars are basically made by Renault.
Renault is a major car manufacturers (with Nissan, which they control, #4 world wide), and a big player in motor sports.
Here's one.
A race where there is ever only one car on the track at a time?
Have you ever been to an auto race? I would not describe the typical crowd as "rich people".
Then you have clearly not been to a Formula One race. With NASCAR you are quite correct.
But that is just the spectators.
You are confusing the people visiting the pits with the spectators. Does this look "rich" to you?
Non-commercial use? How the fuck is that "free"?
Exactly - the GPL isn't a free license.
You may be seeing it, but trust me, IT fucking HATES Macs, because Apple doesn't give two shits about the enterprise.
Nope, it's because they make MicroSoft Certified Bullshit Spreaders redundant.
Cars are very complex machines that can have loads of things go amiss with them without rendering them undrivable, and can have loads of other things go wrong while in operation. You're correct that it's safe to assume everything will be recorded, but I expect equipment failures will plague first-generation autonomous cars once they're old and the tolerances have loosened up. Steering, tires, brakes, suspension alignment, all things that will lead the computer astray as it's attempting to self-drive.
If the computer still works, it will realize that the parts don't operate at full capacity anymore, and will drive to account for that - including refusing to drive when it can't do it safely. Including when self-analysis shows itself isn't working anymore. Just like cars today will stop or only allow driving at low speed when they detect a problem.
Welcome to a world with lawyers and liability laws.Someone is always to blame.
And, as I said, you can bet your ass Google et al are going to try to make sure it's you and not them.
So? Don't drive a Google car then.
Even if that means you'l be in at least 10 times as many accidents where you are at fault as a consequence.
Yes, but you seem to miss the point. If the Nazis would live right now, like Boko Haman or ISS, they would buy an electric modern day mainframe and do their dirty deeds with them.
So Boko Haram buys their mainframes from whom? And no, I didn't miss that you had no fucking point.
Oh, sorry, I forgot to add "successful". These are very interesting research challenges, but nowt here about succeeding on an actual real-world road.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_Prometheus_Project
The next culmination point was achieved in 1995, when Dickmanns re-engineered autonomous S-Class Mercedes-Benz took a 1000 mile trip from Munich in Bavaria to Copenhagen in Denmark and back, using saccadic computer vision and transputers to react in real time. The robot achieved speeds exceeding 175 km/h on the German Autobahn, with a mean time between human interventions of 9 km. In traffic it executed manoeuvres to pass other cars. Despite being a research system without emphasis on long distance reliability, it drove up to 158 km without any human intervention.
Using a USB hub is like distributing a garden hose to many nozzles. When you turn them all on, the spray from each one slows to a trickle.
In the case of of USB 3, the trickle would burst your USB 2 hoses, and fill several mass storage hoses. Wasn't that the point of USB 3? Or were all the USB fanboys lying?
This is why I am a PC. Not a Mac (paraphrased in the commercials)
When something goes obsolete I replace.
In 2013 I got my first SSD in my 2010 AMD phenom II. Then a dual SSD in raid. Then an i7 4770k. Then a another SSD raid. New video card and last a new workstation class computer.
With a mac it is soldered on. Throw away and buy anew.
Yeah, buying everything but the case, floppy (I bet you still have a floppy) and the big, inefficient power supply new makes for such a cheaper buy.
Agree.
I swapped my old Core 2 Duo E7200 (2.53) O/Ced to 3.8 with an OCZ Agility2 SSD for an i3 with a Kingston SSDnow 300 (*old* retired machine that was given to my dad). Altough the new machine boots way faster, and the new SSD is about twice as fast in benchmarks (even if low-end), I find it faster, but not *blew me out of my chair* faster.
Once you go from HDD to SSD, even the cheapest lowest performing SSD is gonna be much faster than anything with spinning platters.
True, that is simply "diminishing returns". Just going from a HDD to ANY SSD will make your computer incredibly faster, but then going to any faster SSD will not give the same benefits, because that one only will be faster on continuous access (like copying large files). Booting the OS or accessing small random files will not benefit much anymore. So going for a super expensive SSD will only be worth it if a.) you read/write lots of LARGE files (e.g. movie editing) or b.) need the long-term reliability of a SSD designed for multi-year writing of tons of data.
I bet you stuck to ATA for your hard drives, because you were used to floppys, and those ATA dries were soooo much faster, everything beyond was just diminishing returns.
Anyways don't let me get in the way of your quest to rewrite history. Remember to just keep repeating your lie enough, and it will become the truth.
If the "birth of the souther GOP" wasn't tied to “white racism.” - why the heck are there so many openly racist pigfuckers among them?
3. 90% are the posts seem to cite Skeptical Science in order to prove their point.
And you're assuming without evaluation that all skeptical science is wrong and all non-skeptical science is not. Are you totally dense? There is no non-skeptical science. All science must be skeptical. Because some IPCC stooges are not, we have the problem we have!
4. Skeptical Science is run by a Cartoonist.
Eh, cartoonists are mostly very sharp en perceptive. Able to see aspects of a situation and portray that which many other don't see right away. Also, if you have only ever read one "skeptical" scientist, no wonder you're in the dark!
I had to laugh so hard reading this. I'm not going to spoil it for you, Mr. Skeptic.
IBM knew exactly what Germany was doing with them. And it was against the law to sell to Germany. IBM mastered of skirting both the laws of the US and Germany, – to get tabulators into Germany and the profits out.
They didn't need to get tabulators into Germany - they were build there.
Which didn't happen. Hitler ran for President, and lost to von Hindenburg. The National Socialists managed to get about 40% of the Reichstag, not a majority but certainly a very important party. Hitler was then appointed to the office of Chancellor, and took over from there.
Actually, in the election after which he became Chancellor, the Nazis only had 33% of the votes.
Who cares?
Always amazing how many people post in a discussion they don't care about.