First: magic? Nobody claims it have anything to do with magic. Well except idiots and trolls.
Second: how the fuck do you know? IF the em-drive does work it requires _very_ specific circumstances to work, do you expect that those circumstances would be common in the neighborhood so that people could trivially detect the effect?
Third: continuing your line of reasoning would lead a reasonable person to conclude that semiconductors and the field effect are "magic" and doesn't naturally exist, the same for super-conductors. Yet we are using machines based on semiconductors using the field effect to do Boolean logic to read this very website!
You _are_ free to speak limited only by the laws of your country. But what you are talking about is forcing private entities to allow your speech to be broadcast - which is bullshit.
Strangely enough humanity as a whole can multitask. Individuals can too.
For your complaint to be valid humanity could only do one thing at a time, that specialization doesn't help when developing something (humans are replaceable cogs) and that somehow your idea what is important is the key to future advancements. You also disregard the fact that basic research often helps progress in unexpected ways - including the area of microscopy.
However you seem to think that just throwing monkeys (read: humans) on typewriters (research) is the best way to develop solutions. That in itself should be a huge warning sign that you shouldn't be taken serious.
No it isn't hypocrisy - there's a huge difference between _choosing_ to do something with ones work and having others choosing to do something with ones work.
...to replace the IPS LCD in my current machine. Given the availability of both larger (TV) and smaller (phone) displays it should be technically possible to deliver a 15" screen and even with a premium price there should be a group of users willing to pay.
Don't get me wrong - better LCD panels can be reasonably low power with good color reproduction and wide viewing angles. But OLED enables very good colors* in combination with very wide viewing angles and a superb non-glare surface. With some good color selection of the user interface one can also lower power consumption while keeping the screen readable (as only lit pixels consume power) while for LCDs one have** to decrease the backlight for the entire display instead.
(* not necessarily better than LCDs optimized for colors) (** with the current generation of screens at least, theoretically the backlight could be segmented into areas with per-area brightness control)
No the ignorant one is you. The Anonymous Coward is correct, people that want to control others will choose something to rally behind. But the real reason is always the same - they don't approve of how other people choose to live and therefore want to force them to change or die (eliminating them).
Authoritarians are the problem no matter what banner they rally under.
Personally I like the idea that consumers are intelligent, moral beings. Taking advantage of an obvious error isn't moral no matter how you slice it, expecting to get what you pay for when it isn't an obvious error is completely different.
So insuring* that reviews of products are from real users of a product and not one of the fake reviews ordered by companies that want to make a profit is guaranteeing profits for the same companies?!?
(* this wouldn't do that as it doesn't require reviewers to use IDs - but at least a consumer could read reviews and take into account if the reviewer is a real person or not)
Even if we all ignore that this is a suggestion, not something that would pass through the strong EU privacy rules etc.:
IN NO WAY DOES THE CURRENT TEXT INDICATE ONE WOULD BE FORCED TO IDENTIFY!
"... consumers SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHOOSE the credentials by which they want to identify or authenticate themselves. In particular, online platforms SHOULD ACCEPT credentials issued or recognised by national public authorities, such as electronic or mobile IDs, national identity cards, or bank cards."
Or in other words: people should be able to choose to use ID cards as a credential online. - period Not be forced to do so - the text is explicit that there have to be a choice from the consumer.
Nope. The only way to interpret your post ATM is indicating that you are a prejudiced idiot and I hope some extra words can put your post in a different light.
Committing suicide isn't "coward's way out". His plans was (thankfully) ruined and there were nothing more to do. Why then expose himself to the victors law and simultaneously legitimate the rule of his enemy? He considered himself the military commander and they were (and still are in some places) expected to commit suicide rather than give themselves up to the enemy. Hitler expected that from field marshal Paulus, considered Paulus choice of surrendering cowardice - if he then didn't do it himself that would be the way of a coward!
TL;DR Please don't fall for the memes. Suicide isn't a cowards way out in general though it in most cases is a bad solution. Hitlers suicide wasn't due to cowardice.
Yes? But I don't know what you mean specifically, are you maybe thinking that a specification have to be a certain document? Many projects, both open-source and closed ditto, have the code as the specification. It works but isn't ideal. Or maybe you think the fact that certain minor compatibility changes between versions is comparable to the Swift type of changes? That isn't true - FFS a normal loop construct written in valid Swift 1.0 isn't compatible with Swift 3.0 - just because it didn't fit the designers style. That languages depreciate some things that isn't reliable isn't near the same kind of change and is easily patched. The last idea from me is that you'd like to compare the Swift progress with the incompatible changes in e.g. Python 2.x and 3.x? If so we are comparing a language that breaks compatibility for every new release (for now) with a language that did one intentional incompatible change.
It will hopefully remain at 0 as it is misinformed at best. No Islam isn't what cause this, local customs are. Just yesterday I read about a christian that arranged the murder of his ex-wifes new husband - as he was a muslim it was not tolerable. But I guess that doesn't have anything to do with anything as it doesn't fit your prejudices? That "honor" (I wouldn't call it that), blood-debts and strange family rules are associated with many christian strongholds around the world is a fact.
Islam actually improves lives compared to the primitive customs it replaces in many places - not that it is anything close to ideal.
Make no mistake: this isn't Swift version 3 - it is the language Swift 3. I guess Swift 4 will not be (completely) backwards compatible either. Because the idea of a programming language evolving from a stable, thoroughly tested base specification is old - not fit for the Apple(TM) generation...
It will be slower than doing normal downloading yes. But the inherent overheads aren't huge, locating nodes with blocks is the largest bottleneck. Freenet have larger overheads but is also more secure.
No it isn't as the Internet also _saved_ a lot of stores* that otherwise be closed! That isn't the fear mongering those that promoted that view intended.
Technology changes - and the world used in connection with similar technologies changes with it. That's the natural order of things.
(* one example (of several) I personally know about was a small bookstore in a small city specializing in mainly old literature about hunting, fishing and general outdoor things. The population was to small to generate the necessary income so the owner distributed copied lists of most kinds of books available that one could get by phoning him, faxing him or sending a mail. Other than the word of mouth method he sometimes placed ads in some relevant magazines. When the Internet got generally available the costs of ads almost evaporated, the costs of copying and distribution was gone, the time spent on the phone reduced strongly (and the time still used generated more sales) and suddenly there were customers from all over the world instead of one (small) country.)
Slashdot Mirror
But they (the experimenters) have systematically removed measuring errors so... I guess as you are so smart you should help them? /s
First: magic? Nobody claims it have anything to do with magic. Well except idiots and trolls.
Second: how the fuck do you know? IF the em-drive does work it requires _very_ specific circumstances to work, do you expect that those circumstances would be common in the neighborhood so that people could trivially detect the effect?
Third: continuing your line of reasoning would lead a reasonable person to conclude that semiconductors and the field effect are "magic" and doesn't naturally exist, the same for super-conductors. Yet we are using machines based on semiconductors using the field effect to do Boolean logic to read this very website!
You _are_ free to speak limited only by the laws of your country. But what you are talking about is forcing private entities to allow your speech to be broadcast - which is bullshit.
Strangely enough humanity as a whole can multitask. Individuals can too.
For your complaint to be valid humanity could only do one thing at a time, that specialization doesn't help when developing something (humans are replaceable cogs) and that somehow your idea what is important is the key to future advancements. You also disregard the fact that basic research often helps progress in unexpected ways - including the area of microscopy.
However you seem to think that just throwing monkeys (read: humans) on typewriters (research) is the best way to develop solutions. That in itself should be a huge warning sign that you shouldn't be taken serious.
No it isn't hypocrisy - there's a huge difference between _choosing_ to do something with ones work and having others choosing to do something with ones work.
...to replace the IPS LCD in my current machine. Given the availability of both larger (TV) and smaller (phone) displays it should be technically possible to deliver a 15" screen and even with a premium price there should be a group of users willing to pay.
Don't get me wrong - better LCD panels can be reasonably low power with good color reproduction and wide viewing angles. But OLED enables very good colors* in combination with very wide viewing angles and a superb non-glare surface. With some good color selection of the user interface one can also lower power consumption while keeping the screen readable (as only lit pixels consume power) while for LCDs one have** to decrease the backlight for the entire display instead.
(* not necessarily better than LCDs optimized for colors)
(** with the current generation of screens at least, theoretically the backlight could be segmented into areas with per-area brightness control)
No the ignorant one is you. The Anonymous Coward is correct, people that want to control others will choose something to rally behind. But the real reason is always the same - they don't approve of how other people choose to live and therefore want to force them to change or die (eliminating them).
Authoritarians are the problem no matter what banner they rally under.
Either a trolling attempt or display of genuine stupidity. My theory is that both are correct and you are a genuinely stupid troll.
No points for upvoting :( All I can offer is a tasty cookie...
Personally I like the idea that consumers are intelligent, moral beings. Taking advantage of an obvious error isn't moral no matter how you slice it, expecting to get what you pay for when it isn't an obvious error is completely different.
So insuring* that reviews of products are from real users of a product and not one of the fake reviews ordered by companies that want to make a profit is guaranteeing profits for the same companies?!?
(* this wouldn't do that as it doesn't require reviewers to use IDs - but at least a consumer could read reviews and take into account if the reviewer is a real person or not)
Even if we all ignore that this is a suggestion, not something that would pass through the strong EU privacy rules etc.:
IN NO WAY DOES THE CURRENT TEXT INDICATE ONE WOULD BE FORCED TO IDENTIFY!
" ... consumers SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHOOSE the credentials by which they want to identify or authenticate themselves. In particular, online platforms SHOULD ACCEPT credentials issued or recognised by national public authorities, such as electronic or mobile IDs, national identity cards, or bank cards."
Or in other words: people should be able to choose to use ID cards as a credential online. - period
Not be forced to do so - the text is explicit that there have to be a choice from the consumer.
IPv6 is a solution to several problems that _do_ exist! Have you ever looked at the changes from IPv4 to IPv6?
Nope. The only way to interpret your post ATM is indicating that you are a prejudiced idiot and I hope some extra words can put your post in a different light.
Especially as there are a lot of studies that indicates women in general are better drivers than men...
Not trying to be an asshole but I think you mean brakes instead of breaks?
How about you just slow down when driving over them? That way they doesn't damage your suspension!
Committing suicide isn't "coward's way out". His plans was (thankfully) ruined and there were nothing more to do. Why then expose himself to the victors law and simultaneously legitimate the rule of his enemy? He considered himself the military commander and they were (and still are in some places) expected to commit suicide rather than give themselves up to the enemy. Hitler expected that from field marshal Paulus, considered Paulus choice of surrendering cowardice - if he then didn't do it himself that would be the way of a coward!
TL;DR Please don't fall for the memes. Suicide isn't a cowards way out in general though it in most cases is a bad solution. Hitlers suicide wasn't due to cowardice.
Yes?
But I don't know what you mean specifically, are you maybe thinking that a specification have to be a certain document? Many projects, both open-source and closed ditto, have the code as the specification. It works but isn't ideal.
Or maybe you think the fact that certain minor compatibility changes between versions is comparable to the Swift type of changes? That isn't true - FFS a normal loop construct written in valid Swift 1.0 isn't compatible with Swift 3.0 - just because it didn't fit the designers style. That languages depreciate some things that isn't reliable isn't near the same kind of change and is easily patched.
The last idea from me is that you'd like to compare the Swift progress with the incompatible changes in e.g. Python 2.x and 3.x? If so we are comparing a language that breaks compatibility for every new release (for now) with a language that did one intentional incompatible change.
I must commend you on writing so clearly. With you obviously having an IQ below 50 that kind of performance is impressive.
It will hopefully remain at 0 as it is misinformed at best. No Islam isn't what cause this, local customs are. Just yesterday I read about a christian that arranged the murder of his ex-wifes new husband - as he was a muslim it was not tolerable. But I guess that doesn't have anything to do with anything as it doesn't fit your prejudices? That "honor" (I wouldn't call it that), blood-debts and strange family rules are associated with many christian strongholds around the world is a fact.
Islam actually improves lives compared to the primitive customs it replaces in many places - not that it is anything close to ideal.
Make no mistake: this isn't Swift version 3 - it is the language Swift 3. I guess Swift 4 will not be (completely) backwards compatible either. Because the idea of a programming language evolving from a stable, thoroughly tested base specification is old - not fit for the Apple(TM) generation...
Funny as the network you are most likely using to post here is based on IP version 4, a network that is older than the IPX one...
It will be slower than doing normal downloading yes. But the inherent overheads aren't huge, locating nodes with blocks is the largest bottleneck. Freenet have larger overheads but is also more secure.
No it isn't as the Internet also _saved_ a lot of stores* that otherwise be closed! That isn't the fear mongering those that promoted that view intended.
Technology changes - and the world used in connection with similar technologies changes with it. That's the natural order of things.
(* one example (of several) I personally know about was a small bookstore in a small city specializing in mainly old literature about hunting, fishing and general outdoor things. The population was to small to generate the necessary income so the owner distributed copied lists of most kinds of books available that one could get by phoning him, faxing him or sending a mail. Other than the word of mouth method he sometimes placed ads in some relevant magazines. When the Internet got generally available the costs of ads almost evaporated, the costs of copying and distribution was gone, the time spent on the phone reduced strongly (and the time still used generated more sales) and suddenly there were customers from all over the world instead of one (small) country.)