Who said anything about replacing truck drivers with autonomous driving systems? Airplanes have autopilot, but they still require TWO pilots. Autonomous trucking systems will be no different. Somebody will have to drive it in city traffic and park it at the freight terminal, and take over when the autonomous system doesn't know how to handle a situation. The difference is that in a plane you usually have seconds or minutes to take over the system, whereas on a road with cars mere feet away, a trucker will have fractions of a second to respond and take over to a situation.
If a plane could simply pull over on the outskirts of town to meet its harbor pilot, long haul freight plane pilots would be on the block, too.
Depends program objectives. Most of my code does not need to be fast, and some even works better if it is slow so it does not pig some resource
Sounds like a lame excuse for shitty code. Code should be fast/efficient, meaning it should get as much done as possible on as few cycles as possible. If efficient code hogs the CPU because it has a great deal of work to do, making the code slow is probably the wrong approach. Try lowering process or thread priority.
Infringing a patent is not a crime. Sure, the patent holder could bring litigation against you for simply making a patented part, but about all that would accomplish is a court order barring you from making another one, and of course cost them lots of money. So in practice, as far as patents are concerned, yes you can make anything you want for yourself. If you start making money by selling such items, then you may have a problem.
Oh, and I'm betting that we'd have so few criminals on death row after this went into effect, that we could simply abandon capital punishment altogether, ending this whole stupid ass debate for good.
I dunno, I've deprived myself of oxygen before. Just breath in a bag for awhile. You'll go into full panic long before reaching the point of losing consciousness.
On the other hand, I've also cut the flow of blood to my brain by constricting my jugglers, and actually passed out a couple times doing it. I freaked a bunch of kids out in grade school doing it in class, actually. It's completely painless and doesn't trigger the slightest bit of panic. You can be pleasantly unconscious in 15 seconds that way. I suspect that bleeding to death is similar.
How long would it take to drain an inmate's circulatory system to the point of rapid unconsciousness? Guaranteed to kill, and no less humane than lethal injection.
I LOVE this idea. Except, I would expand it make it a no-strings-attached option for anyone charged with any felony, maybe even any misdemeanor. Change the guilty plea to, "how do you plead, guilty, not guilty, or kill me now?" And, of course, the option should be extended to anyone currently service time. Our prisons would be nearly empty within a year.
Google can encrypt the data all they want, right down to encrypting it when it arrives, and leaving it encrypted for its lifetime on their servers, but the NSA can just say "gimme the data AND the keys to unlock it". The keys are just data, and obviously Google has access to them, therefore so does the NSA.
Data might be the new oil, but the data of any one average person is worth almost exactly nothing. Should I charge Google almost exactly nothing for my data?
Yeah sure we can generate plenty of electricity. Just toss up another coal fired plant. Yay.
I'm thinking solar. If this technology, coupled with tracking solar concentrators, can be done more cost and radiation efficiently than current solar technologies, then it may be a huge win.
I stand corrected. And somewhat confused. I found the 6.5 release notes:
"Multi-version concurrency control(MVCC)
This removes our old table-level locking, and replaces it with a locking system that is superior to most commercial database systems. In a traditional system, each row that is modified is locked until committed, preventing reads by other users. MVCC uses the natural multi-version nature of PostgreSQL to allow readers to continue reading consistent data during writer activity. Writers continue to use the compact pg_log transaction system. This is all performed without having to allocate a lock for every row like traditional database systems. So, basically, we no longer are restricted by simple table-level locking; we have something better than row-level locking."
That seems to imply that the "MV" existed, perhaps all along, but that the "CC" part was new in 6.5. Maybe that explains my confusion. Anyway, that was a long time ago. Thanks for whacking me with the clue stick:D
There was always a latent threat of switching to MSSQL, for the exact reasons presented and debunked above. It could easily have happened, and I like to think I did a decent job of being about as ready for such a shift as possible.
As far as I know, Postgres has had MVCC from the start. I started dabbling in it at 6.4 (before it was enterprise ready IMO), and it certainly had it then.
MSSQL has also had a variant of MVCC since, um, 2005 I think. Can't be bothered to go look:)
I've had very few problems with Postgres that weren't actually a result of my own mistakes, and of course I handled them by fixing those mistakes. Any time I've actually needed to lean on someone else, the mailing lists have been very helpful, and very quick to respond. Not only that, but the mailing lists are frequented by the actual developers, so when you ask a question about some specific aspect of Postgres, there's a good chance you'll be answered by one of the people who actually built or at least maintains that piece of the code. As apposed to some clown reading from a script of trouble shooting bullshit who doesn't even know what language the software is written in. That, to me, is the very best kind of support there is.
How is any of that different with Postgres? Either way, you restore from back up and away you go. In neither case did blaming a software company get you out of trouble. That's why I say, it's a sham. You pay big money for something that, at the end of the day, isn't really worth a penny.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, refueling? En route maintenance. Stuff like that?
1) Truck signals for fuel.
2) Dispatch arranges for fuel delivery.
3) Truck pulls over when/where instructed.
4) Fuel truck pulls up, driver transfers fuel.
5) Profit!
Also, existing truck stops could simply employ drivers to bring autonomous trucks in for fueling and then send them on their way.
Same basic idea for maintenance.
Who said anything about replacing truck drivers with autonomous driving systems? Airplanes have autopilot, but they still require TWO pilots. Autonomous trucking systems will be no different. Somebody will have to drive it in city traffic and park it at the freight terminal, and take over when the autonomous system doesn't know how to handle a situation. The difference is that in a plane you usually have seconds or minutes to take over the system, whereas on a road with cars mere feet away, a trucker will have fractions of a second to respond and take over to a situation.
If a plane could simply pull over on the outskirts of town to meet its harbor pilot, long haul freight plane pilots would be on the block, too.
Fast
Depends program objectives. Most of my code does not need to be fast, and some even works better if it is slow so it does not pig some resource
Sounds like a lame excuse for shitty code. Code should be fast/efficient, meaning it should get as much done as possible on as few cycles as possible. If efficient code hogs the CPU because it has a great deal of work to do, making the code slow is probably the wrong approach. Try lowering process or thread priority.
preventing accidental speeding, just as long as it leaves me alone when I'm speeding deliberately.
Infringing a patent is not a crime. Sure, the patent holder could bring litigation against you for simply making a patented part, but about all that would accomplish is a court order barring you from making another one, and of course cost them lots of money. So in practice, as far as patents are concerned, yes you can make anything you want for yourself. If you start making money by selling such items, then you may have a problem.
I try not to let Trojans anywhere near my backdoor.
Back in 97, javascript was little more than a toy language for making animations in websites
Some things never change :p
England called. You're in big trouble now.
Execution is not about revenge.
Oh, and I'm betting that we'd have so few criminals on death row after this went into effect, that we could simply abandon capital punishment altogether, ending this whole stupid ass debate for good.
I dunno, I've deprived myself of oxygen before. Just breath in a bag for awhile. You'll go into full panic long before reaching the point of losing consciousness.
On the other hand, I've also cut the flow of blood to my brain by constricting my jugglers, and actually passed out a couple times doing it. I freaked a bunch of kids out in grade school doing it in class, actually. It's completely painless and doesn't trigger the slightest bit of panic. You can be pleasantly unconscious in 15 seconds that way. I suspect that bleeding to death is similar.
How long would it take to drain an inmate's circulatory system to the point of rapid unconsciousness? Guaranteed to kill, and no less humane than lethal injection.
I LOVE this idea. Except, I would expand it make it a no-strings-attached option for anyone charged with any felony, maybe even any misdemeanor. Change the guilty plea to, "how do you plead, guilty, not guilty, or kill me now?" And, of course, the option should be extended to anyone currently service time. Our prisons would be nearly empty within a year.
Somebody mod this up. This is dead right.
Google can encrypt the data all they want, right down to encrypting it when it arrives, and leaving it encrypted for its lifetime on their servers, but the NSA can just say "gimme the data AND the keys to unlock it". The keys are just data, and obviously Google has access to them, therefore so does the NSA.
Pretty much this. There should be no way to change an ID. It's called an ID for a f***king reason.
And (amount, address, timestamp) as a key? That's funny sh*t right thar!
not futile?
I have absolutely no idea why people find them appealing.
Hint: They taste good.
I hope they start farming lobsters first. My favorite bug! Then crab, then shrimp... Mmm yummy bugs :D
...does that make the Moon Earth's toque?
Data might be the new oil, but the data of any one average person is worth almost exactly nothing. Should I charge Google almost exactly nothing for my data?
Yeah sure we can generate plenty of electricity. Just toss up another coal fired plant. Yay.
I'm thinking solar. If this technology, coupled with tracking solar concentrators, can be done more cost and radiation efficiently than current solar technologies, then it may be a huge win.
I stand corrected. And somewhat confused. I found the 6.5 release notes:
"Multi-version concurrency control(MVCC)
This removes our old table-level locking, and replaces it with a locking system that is superior to most commercial database systems. In a traditional system, each row that is modified is locked until committed, preventing reads by other users. MVCC uses the natural multi-version nature of PostgreSQL to allow readers to continue reading consistent data during writer activity. Writers continue to use the compact pg_log transaction system. This is all performed without having to allocate a lock for every row like traditional database systems. So, basically, we no longer are restricted by simple table-level locking; we have something better than row-level locking."
That seems to imply that the "MV" existed, perhaps all along, but that the "CC" part was new in 6.5. Maybe that explains my confusion. Anyway, that was a long time ago. Thanks for whacking me with the clue stick :D
I never had to. But that's beside the point :)
There was always a latent threat of switching to MSSQL, for the exact reasons presented and debunked above. It could easily have happened, and I like to think I did a decent job of being about as ready for such a shift as possible.
As far as I know, Postgres has had MVCC from the start. I started dabbling in it at 6.4 (before it was enterprise ready IMO), and it certainly had it then.
MSSQL has also had a variant of MVCC since, um, 2005 I think. Can't be bothered to go look :)
I've had very few problems with Postgres that weren't actually a result of my own mistakes, and of course I handled them by fixing those mistakes. Any time I've actually needed to lean on someone else, the mailing lists have been very helpful, and very quick to respond. Not only that, but the mailing lists are frequented by the actual developers, so when you ask a question about some specific aspect of Postgres, there's a good chance you'll be answered by one of the people who actually built or at least maintains that piece of the code. As apposed to some clown reading from a script of trouble shooting bullshit who doesn't even know what language the software is written in. That, to me, is the very best kind of support there is.
How is any of that different with Postgres? Either way, you restore from back up and away you go. In neither case did blaming a software company get you out of trouble. That's why I say, it's a sham. You pay big money for something that, at the end of the day, isn't really worth a penny.