The whole point of electric motors is max torque from zero rpm so what the hell does it need a 5 speed for? Ok, its rpm isn't unlimited so eventually you'll have to changed the ratio to get a good top speed , but 2 ratios should be enough for this. Whats going on?
Power output is the wrong number to look at, What you want to see for racing is the torque curve.
I haven't seen the torque curve for the motor used in the Formula E cars, but if it's typical then it will be max torque flat from zero to about 6,000 rpm and then fall off linearly to 17,500 rpm. I'm not sure, but I think that the peak torque is about 250-270 ft-lbs or around that for the formula E cars. That is not enough torque to spin the tires, and for maximum acceleration you need enough torque to slightly spin the tires. Of course the engine torque would be multiplied by the final drive ratio after going through the gearbox, so a 250 ft-lb motor with a final 4:1 drive ratio would put 1,000 ft-lbs at the wheel which is probably more than enough for these cars.
The catch is that a 4:1 ratio reduce the rotational speed by 4, so in exchange for getting 1,000 ft-lbs of torque, a 17,500 rpm engine speed would give you only 4,375 rpm at the wheel. So your top speed drops by 4. If you were able to go 160 mph in direct drive at 17,500, but now have a final drive ratio of 4:1, now your top speed is only 40 mph. You beat everyone to the first curve, but they drive by you on the straight.
Seems like you can't be a racist bigot anymore without someone taping what you say and posting it online. How are good old boys clubs supposed to survive in the new millennium? Are we going to have more places demanding people surrender their cellphones before entering? Between this and dashcams and cop cameras it's getting really hard to get away with being a total shithead anymore. We're going to have to see some senators step up and propose legislation to protect the children and good old fashion values soon or it will be too late.
I solved that by using "Anonymous Coward" for all my public interactions, whether total shithead style or not. Ok, well, I can't recall my ever not having been a shithead, but you can see the potential for the technique.
The problem is that there is no way to write a law with the intent of preventing abuse of people [who] are too young to be able to [in?]form themselves to make reasoned decisions about sex or reproduction other than arbitrarily assigning a numerical age as the borderline.
That is demonstrably incorrect. Like any matter of competence, an adequate determination of the actual situation can be ascertained by testing. The relevant issues here would include the various facts of the matter (contraception methods and effectiveness, disease varieties, recognition, and prevention, the technical details of becoming pregnant, etc.); the potential consequences as related to catching and spreading STDs, pregnancy, child-rearing, adoption, abortion, social issues such as reputation, etc., basic statistics on relationship durations and other related matters. Any moderately competent educator could set up an adequate testing regime -- there are no technical barriers to this at all.
What you have is described is what should be the result of a good sex education class. I wish everyone could have that experience. Unfortunately, the social forces you mention later in your reply prevent sex education from being taught properly in many places.
But a test to determine if a person is able to make reasoned decisions about sex and reproduction? What you have described is, before anything else, a literacy test. It would be great if we could implement this, but what you have described is eugenics. There is no way to write a law in the USA that even remotely smells of eugenics, and that's a fact. Hmm, it occurs to me now that what I said is unclear. By "write a law", I mean the entire process from drafting it to getting the legislature to pass it and a governor to sign it.
Also, regarding "And no, agency does not instantly arise like some magic fucking flower when the human body crosses a 16-, 17-, 18-, 19-, 20-, or 21-year old "finish line".
This is a straw man. No one makes the claim as you stated it. We know some people under 18 years are competent to sign contracts, and we know that some people will never be competent. The idea is that we guess when most people at that age will be competent to make reasoned decisions, as well as the societal benefits to allow and/or harm to prevent for the behavior under consideration, whether driving, signing contracts, drinking, or having consensual sex.
Another problem is that setting a numerical age as the borderline does not prevent abuse of the incompetent, nor does it ensure the individual can make reasoned decisions. All it does is create a legal nightmare for young people and anyone who might be involved with them.
That is why in addition to laws protecting the young from exploitation, there are laws protecting the mentally retarded and insane. Admittedly, this is one area that is a legal nightmare with many contradictory rulings. The problem being that laws preventing exploitation of the mentally handicapped also denies their having sex life in their entire life. I think that courts generally believe each case is unique.
The current state of affairs is toxic, unjustifiable, and guaranteed - known - to cause harm on both sides of the lines drawn. Young people below the line who are competent, and anyone involved with them, are subject to incredibly brutal punishments, de facto extreme compromise of their working, interpersonal, childbearing and residential future(s), gross public shaming, vigilantism and more.
That's why we have the so-called Romeo and Juliet laws that allow sex between people of similar ages. Unfortunately, many states have not written such laws. This is, as you pointed out, a travesty.
Then you continue with what is basically a string of insults that hides the meaning of whatever you were trying to say.
I used to support an office of several hundred clerks starting from the Windows 3 days. When the extensions are exposed, some people would change the extensions for some reason known only to the non-verbal half of their brain or perhaps just typing clumsiness. Now they can't open the spreadsheet by just clicking on it, and worse yet, they seem to most often do that in the shared departmental folders.
One typical thing that happened was when gradualy transitioning the office newer versions of MS Word, so some people could open.docx documents and some could not. The solution? Just rename.docx to.doc. Yay! that should work.
Anyway, a long time ago it became obvious that making it difficult for users to change file extensions would reduce support calls, and so here we are now. As many other posters above me pointed out, the real problem is that the extension is used to determine the file-type association.
It's not about politics, it's about her boyfriend.
The State Departments server can only deliver mail through Earth's Internet. It's well known that she keeps in touch with P'Lod, her alien lover. So she needs access to InterGalactic email, which P'Lod got her an account on. She's not lazy by any means, but keeping track of multiple email accounts is a pain in the neck, so she uses the P'lod one for everything.
If you want some more "facts", Just search google for: Hillary Clinton P'lod
Although what you said was basically true, there is a problem with your position. The problem is that there is no way to write a law with the intent of preventing abuse of people are too young to be able to form themselves to make reasoned decisions about sex or reproduction other than arbitrarily assigning a numerical age as the borderline.
Consider that there are laws and/or policies against adults of any age having sex with people whom they supervise in a business setting. This is because there is no way of separating choice made through duress frm free choice in those situations.
If only we could find a way to test for that skill before the crash happens. I suppose the tickets and points system is an after the fact method of finding those people who totally lack judgement skills.
As far as the study of impaired driving goes, I think we could separate out judgement problems by looking at the kinds of crashes. For example, crashes like rear-enders in rush hour, or in bad weather could be ascribed to momentary lapses. Crashes while driving twice the speed limit are bad judgement. Or, Running a red light while passing a line cars stopped for the light.
So then we take those kinds of crashes, see what percent are done by people doing what kind of chemical, or not doing, and compare the numbers to the number of people who are driving stoned at any time.
So, if there are 10,000 crashes we label as judgement problems, and 5% are done by people with marijuana residue in their system, and there are 12% driving while stoned at the time of the crash, then we could suppose marijuana promotes safe driving. Why this is so, that is, what is causal, would be for another study.
Who knows, we may even discover driving while doing meth is a has idea. Maybe arrests for driving 10mph on the interstate will show an association with driving on LSD.
Ok, well not entirely irrelevant. Many of these posts talk about how driving ability, that is, the ability to navigate a course while drunk or stoned, is not imparied by M.J. except at large doses (unlike alcohol which can make it hard to even go on all-fours in a straight line; I know that for a fact).
So what. Sure, alcohol significantly impairs motor skills and reaction times, but the real problem with alcohol is how it impairs judgement. While a youngster I did drive wasted. I made an conscious effort to drive as carefully as possible so as to get home, and much more carefully than is my natural inclination.
My experience was that most people I knew lost all common sense when drunk. When they were sober, they would not do the things that I did while I was sober (some would not even ride with me to go get a burger, at least not in my race car), but while drunk they would try anything and even in the rain.
I just don't see that judgement problem with stoned people. I cannot speak from personal experience; I never did toke. People I knew seem to pretty much drive stoned the same way they did while straight. Those that drove like my mom when they were straight drove like my mom when they were stoned. Those that drove like they were trying to get home to beat a diarhea attack when straight drove like that when stoned. My crazy redneck friends didn't get mellow when they started smoking. They just turned into stoned assholes.
Anyway, I think the whole thing of doing tests on motor-skills while driving is nearly pointless. Crashes occuring due to insufficient skills are rare compared to numb-skullery.
The real problem with people is that they get into crashes due to their poor judgement. Not watching the road ahead, fooling with the radio, reading the newspaper, fooling with their lunch, trying to one-hand text while driving where children are playing and so on.
In my observations, I don't believe that marijuana affects judgement in the way that alcohol does; it's not even close. If we are going to let people self-medicate, then I believe marijuana is a superior choice.
However, in my experience as a school teacher , something must be done to keep it (any recreational drug) out of the hands of teenagers and children. It is very obvious that many of them lack the ability to control their usage, and they seem to often become damaged in their mental abilities in a way that does not seem to happen to the adults that I knew that started later in life.
I would really really want the children problem solved. I also think that with M.J. legalized, we can do a better job of keeping it away from kids. We used to do a much better job of keeping alcohol away from teenagers, but I think people have gven up.
On September 23, 2014, an Italian court in Milan award compensation to a boy for vaccine-induced autism. (See the Italian document here.) A childhood vaccine against six childhood diseases caused the boy’s permanent autism and brain damage.
While the Italian press has devoted considerable attention to this decision and its public health implications, the U.S. press has been silent. Italy’s National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
Well. yes we've already heard of this in the USA. It's old news. You may be surprised to learn that the media in the USA is not compelled to print every piece of bullshit that comes up. If you had been awake during the last few decades you would have known that news commentators that get caught telling stories that are later proven to be false are fired without a second chance.
It appears that the courts depended upon the testimony of a single doctor who has never published in a journal, but yet who claims to have a cure for autism.
... if that was true. Several experiments to determine the neutron flux falling with the inverse square law (for a point source) have been done so far. To my knowledge none of them suggested the neutron particles were "leaking" into other dimensions. String theorists, go look elsewhere.
That's the second thing I thought, but what is different in this experiment is that the neutron detector will be heavily shielded from the reactor's neutrons so that the expected flux would be zero at any distance. If the "brane-leakage" flux is small, then it may have fallen within the error of measurement of a reactor's typical flux.
By expected flux, I mean the flux one would expect if there are no other branes nor cross brane leakage. That is, only neutrons from natural background decays and cosmic rays.
There are many common idioms that are used incorrectly in conversation or casual writing. But that doesn't mean they should be used in formal writing, such as an encyclopedia.
Well met, friend, for thou speakst great sooth! Many people have I encountered who are such dullards as to employ incorrectly the English tongue. 'Tis tragedy of the vtmost that the youth of our times know not how the language should properly speak itself. A gay fellow would I be were my fellow man to renew his acquaintance with the King's English.
Alas! but I must forsake thy gentle companie, for mine friends await me in a local hostelrie, and so must I away! Parting is such sweet sorry. Anon, good sir, anon!
Get a job as a contracter/sysadmin, and store encrypted copies of all your stuff on the servers in your client's offices around the country. I would also suggest their desktop computers. The executives desktop computers always have extra space, but they get upgrades too often. I suggest low-level management's and receptionist's desktops. They never get anything new.
The actual survey question is:
“Do you support or oppose the following government policies?”
with several cases, one of which is: "Mandatory labels on foods containing DNA"
The first thing you should notice is that the word "warning" does not appear. Kudos to the reporters and slashdot poster who either did not read the survey or did not understand what they read.
Almost all foods already have labels, and for most foods (presently) anything more processed than a raw banana must have a label. So, the question is, should all foods (containing DNA) be required to have a label? For example, "This is a banana" would meet the definition of the question. or, "You're looking at a steak"
I can support that, especially for processed foods, and we already have that law, so, yeah, I support mandated labels.
especially for those weird roots that appear in the bin at the grocery store. WTF is that I ask? I dunno, there's no label.
Look in the sky, see the flock of starlings? The dark clump of birds that you can see will dart around, sometimes here, sometimes there. It can fly west and yet clump east, time-travel! Must be negative time! Sometimes simultaneously appearing in two places. Faster than light travel! Sometimes no clump can be seen. Where'd they go? Poof, out of existence.
You want a quantum simulator? Starlings, go watch a flock of starlings and apply your quantum equations to their motion.
You may think I'm kidding, but the same problem exists. Just as you can't see the individual bird, only the flock, likewise you've built a bunch of equations for a flock of smaller particles. You can only detect the flock and not the particles.
Keeping with your analogy... In order to exactly determine the location of each single starling, you need a shotgun(s). Then it no longer is part of the flock now that it has been observed.
As an aside, I am aware that you can shoot at a flock of starlings all day and not hit a one.
This thing only duplicates items that were originally made by a 3D printer that uses that same material. That is to say, I don't want a teleported camshaft that is printed with a 3D printer that uses chocolate for the printing material. Well actually I do want that, but I would not put it in an engine.
Nor do I see how something made of materials that aren't available as 3D printer matrix materials could be teleported.
This really intrigues me because it never struck me that this could be a mechanism for antibiotic resistance. It is even more interesting to me knowing the first CRE (Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae)
but the reasons weren't clear to me and I just naively assumed it was a random mutation. India, also according to to that same paper has quite a problem with antibiotic resistance which one wouldn't expect as there isn't so much of a problem with antibiotic overuse as there seems to be in the West. So, maybe not so random and maybe we have honed in on a legit reason for growing resistance.
The other problem in India and similar places is that the dosage wasn't what the label said. The doctor may have prescribed 500 mg of amoxicillin, and the patient bought capsules in a bottle labeled 500mg amoxicillin, but what was in those capsules was a fraction of the prescribed dosage.
The bad part is Ranbaxy only got caught because one of their executives was an American who ratted them out. Ranbaxy only got into trouble because they tried to sell their crap in the USA, otherwise nothing would have happened to them. There are numerous other drug companies with the same ethics, but they don't try to sell in the USA or Europe, so they'll never get caught.
Another thing I did not know is that the FDA almost never test drugs for efficacy. What happens is the drug company does the tests and the FDA looks at the drug companies documentation and procedures and signs off on that. This is why cheaters don't get caught - they are grading their own papers, so to speak.
BTW, Ranbaxy was bought by Sun Pharma, so Who Knows where their drugs are going now.
There's a saying that the credit for a discovery goes to the last person who finds it. This is a variation of Stigler's law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
A few ounces of ash isn't going to be replaced by a useful science instrument. If they sent up people's entire remains it'd be a different story.
A whole corpse? That would be awesome, especially when some alien culture opens up the probe and realizes what it is.
Alien Corporal realizes what he's looking at: WTF! WTF! It's some dead guy! Alien Sarge: A corpse? Is this some kind of joke? Why would they do that? Find the Captain and tell him. Alien Captain: I bet it's a threat. They're saying this is what they'll do to us. Alien Captain: We need to hit them first and hit them hard. Alien Captain: Unlock the weapons cabinets, and make sure every man has his sword and shield.
Most of what people complain about with "government"-run stuff is actually a feature of monopolies. A company's ultimate accountability to its customers is their ability to throw that company over entirely for someone else. But if you are going to have a monopoly anyway, not making it accountable to the people in any other meaningful way (eg: making it government run or regulating it) will only make a bad situation worse.
“Most studies find,” Hood stated, “that lower levels of taxes and spending, less-intrusive regulation correlate with stronger economic performance.”
Sounds pretty, doesn't it? Who could argue against that? Think of the children!!! Mom and apple pie!!!!
What they DON'T tell you is what this weasel phrase "stronger economic performance" means: Does it mean "better service, lower prices and increased customer satisfaction" OR does it really mean "higher profits and f*ck the customer"?
Most/.ers probably are not old enough to remember the days when all telecommunications were regulated under title II. Let's just say that costs were higher, innovation was essentially prohibited, and service was even worse than you can get from Comcast today.
"So, the next time you complain about your phone service, why don't you try using two Dixie cups with a string? We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."
I'm old enough to remember. My families phone number was two letters and 5 digits, and I was a small child when the first direct-dial long distance call was made. I had relatives that were still on party lines.
You are correct in that phone service was expensive compared to today. Long distance calls back then cost far more per hour than almost anyone's hourly pay.
However local land-line service was cheap and included in-home service for phones and wiring. Some people went for decades between outages. The primary cause was someone knocking down a pole and breaking the wires.
But today's lower costs are almost entirely due to technological advances and not to de-regularization.
When de-regularization happened, home phone rates went up as telco businesses sprang to to cherry-pick businesses to serve.
(home phone rates in the regulated days were subsidized by higher rates charged to businesses, much like electric rates are set)
However, the good thing about de-regularization was that those new telco businesses now competed on the basis of features, and business phone service competition drove innovation. After that, then home service rates went down (that is, down in inflation adjusted dollars)
But look at the things invented during the regulated phase by Bell Labs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... in the 50's, 60's 70's
That is a list of eveyrthing. transisters, lasers, MOSFET, molecular beam epitaxy, Ritchie and Kernigan worked at Bell Labs.
As for "service was even worse than you can get from Comcast today", I do not think that is correct.
My only service requests (and my parents) had been establishing new service when moving, and it was always excellent.
My experience with Comcast (and my neighbors) was shockingly bad. Bad as in refusing to take service requests, bad as in not showing up at all for service requests that had been accepted.and worst of all bad as in having service failures at all.
I have never met anyone whose experience was the opposite of mine regarding telco vs Comcast service, or even modern AT&T vs old AT&T. Service was one thing they did right in the old days..
You don't get it. If you gave him that beer from the community fund, that he himself was contributing to, he didn't get a free beer and might wonder why you were using the community chess to give him a beer, or if that was the wisest use of that money. If the state educational system is funding it, just because a school doesn't see the bill doesn't mean its free. Or, in your case, everything for the school is free because they really aren't paying for anything, they are just workers at the schools.
My example is a lot shorter as well!
It drive me nuts when someone makes the argument that something is not free because somebody paid for it somewhere.
It's free to the person who got it and did not pay for it, otherwise the word "free" has no meaning.
Sure, Peachnet is funded ultimately by the State of Georgia taxes and lottery players, and all money ultimately comes from the labor of the proletariat or something like that. The thing is that various entities have their own budgets, whether it's my bank account, schools, or the fire department.
And this is not in the budgets of the school systems that are receiving the service.
The fiber rollout to these schools is happening outside their budgets - it's not an item to them.
Nor can they choose to spend the money on something else that they might think is a better use because they never see any money.
The thing is that many, if not most of the schools that are getting the fiber have no money for such things because they have little tax base.
There are 159 counties in Ga, and of those about half have less than 25,000 population. 30 counties have less than 10,000 people.
Their tax base is not enough to fund getting fiber, network infrastructure, and support run to anywhere especially for the few students they have.
Their contribution to the tax base is a fraction of what they get back.
If the state did not provide the fiber at no cost to them, those schools would have no fiber.
It is irrelevant that there may have been a wiser use of the money because they never had the money.
If you asked me if it was free to the people of the State of Georgia, then no it isn't. The money came out of our pockets.
But it's free to the school systems.
'If you can beat free, then I'm willing to listen.'
Well, someone should tell them its not free, its just that they don't get the bill. Its not clear from the article what the actual cost is.
sigh.
It should be obvious to anyone that read the article that what he meant was free at the endpoint - free to the school that receives the bandwidth.
How can I explain it?
My next door neighbor was working in his garden, and I told him him could take a break and offered him a beer.
I handed him a beer over the fence. He did not give me any money.
He got a free beer.
I know that I had to earn the money to buy the beer,
He got a free beer because he didn't give me any money.
I know that the brewery had to purchase the materials and plant to brew the beer and buy bottles.
But he got a free beer because he didn't have to pay for any of that.
It was a free beer.
That beer was transported on public roads that had been paid for with taxes, and my neighbor pays taxes. but there was no cost to my neighbor for transporting that beer.
It was a still free beer to him.
He got a free beer.
If the word "free" has any meaning at all, then somebody gets something they did not have to give extra money for.
In this case, it's free bandwidth to schools.
If you want to argue that "the money could have been used to buy books instead", I'll tell you that the cost of that beer could have been used to give my neighbor a book. But nonetheless he still got a beer. And it was free.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole point of electric motors is max torque from zero rpm so what the hell does it need a 5 speed for? Ok, its rpm isn't unlimited so eventually you'll have to changed the ratio to get a good top speed , but 2 ratios should be enough for this. Whats going on?
Power output is the wrong number to look at, What you want to see for racing is the torque curve.
I haven't seen the torque curve for the motor used in the Formula E cars, but if it's typical then it will be max torque flat from zero to about 6,000 rpm and then fall off linearly to 17,500 rpm. I'm not sure, but I think that the peak torque is about 250-270 ft-lbs or around that for the formula E cars. That is not enough torque to spin the tires, and for maximum acceleration you need enough torque to slightly spin the tires.
Of course the engine torque would be multiplied by the final drive ratio after going through the gearbox, so a 250 ft-lb motor with a final 4:1 drive ratio would put 1,000 ft-lbs at the wheel which is probably more than enough for these cars.
The catch is that a 4:1 ratio reduce the rotational speed by 4, so in exchange for getting 1,000 ft-lbs of torque, a 17,500 rpm engine speed would give you only 4,375 rpm at the wheel. So your top speed drops by 4. If you were able to go 160 mph in direct drive at 17,500, but now have a final drive ratio of 4:1, now your top speed is only 40 mph. You beat everyone to the first curve, but they drive by you on the straight.
Unless you have a gearbox.
by clovis (4684) Alter Relationship on Monday March 09, 2015 @03:44PM (#49217993)
Its all over now, you screwed up!!!!
yep, I'm busted now.
If nothing else, all should bow down before my incredible productivity.
Seems like you can't be a racist bigot anymore without someone taping what you say and posting it online. How are good old boys clubs supposed to survive in the new millennium? Are we going to have more places demanding people surrender their cellphones before entering? Between this and dashcams and cop cameras it's getting really hard to get away with being a total shithead anymore. We're going to have to see some senators step up and propose legislation to protect the children and good old fashion values soon or it will be too late.
I solved that by using "Anonymous Coward" for all my public interactions, whether total shithead style or not.
Ok, well, I can't recall my ever not having been a shithead, but you can see the potential for the technique.
That is demonstrably incorrect. Like any matter of competence, an adequate determination of the actual situation can be ascertained by testing. The relevant issues here would include the various facts of the matter (contraception methods and effectiveness, disease varieties, recognition, and prevention, the technical details of becoming pregnant, etc.); the potential consequences as related to catching and spreading STDs, pregnancy, child-rearing, adoption, abortion, social issues such as reputation, etc., basic statistics on relationship durations and other related matters. Any moderately competent educator could set up an adequate testing regime -- there are no technical barriers to this at all.
What you have is described is what should be the result of a good sex education class. I wish everyone could have that experience. Unfortunately, the social forces you mention later in your reply prevent sex education from being taught properly in many places.
But a test to determine if a person is able to make reasoned decisions about sex and reproduction?
What you have described is, before anything else, a literacy test.
It would be great if we could implement this, but what you have described is eugenics. There is no way to write a law in the USA that even remotely smells of eugenics, and that's a fact.
Hmm, it occurs to me now that what I said is unclear. By "write a law", I mean the entire process from drafting it to getting the legislature to pass it and a governor to sign it.
Also, regarding "And no, agency does not instantly arise like some magic fucking flower when the human body crosses a 16-, 17-, 18-, 19-, 20-, or 21-year old "finish line".
This is a straw man. No one makes the claim as you stated it. We know some people under 18 years are competent to sign contracts, and we know that some people will never be competent.
The idea is that we guess when most people at that age will be competent to make reasoned decisions, as well as the societal benefits to allow and/or harm to prevent for the behavior under consideration, whether driving, signing contracts, drinking, or having consensual sex.
Another problem is that setting a numerical age as the borderline does not prevent abuse of the incompetent, nor does it ensure the individual can make reasoned decisions. All it does is create a legal nightmare for young people and anyone who might be involved with them.
That is why in addition to laws protecting the young from exploitation, there are laws protecting the mentally retarded and insane. Admittedly, this is one area that is a legal nightmare with many contradictory rulings. The problem being that laws preventing exploitation of the mentally handicapped also denies their having sex life in their entire life. I think that courts generally believe each case is unique.
The current state of affairs is toxic, unjustifiable, and guaranteed - known - to cause harm on both sides of the lines drawn. Young people below the line who are competent, and anyone involved with them, are subject to incredibly brutal punishments, de facto extreme compromise of their working, interpersonal, childbearing and residential future(s), gross public shaming, vigilantism and more.
That's why we have the so-called Romeo and Juliet laws that allow sex between people of similar ages.
Unfortunately, many states have not written such laws. This is, as you pointed out, a travesty.
Then you continue with what is basically a string of insults that hides the meaning of whatever you were trying to say.
You don't have to hide the extensions in order to make the GUI not change them. Just prevent the user from editing that part of the filename.
That would be a good solution, especially if it were controllable through group policy.
Lock it down in the office; do what you want at home.
I used to support an office of several hundred clerks starting from the Windows 3 days.
When the extensions are exposed, some people would change the extensions for some reason known only to the non-verbal half of their brain or perhaps just typing clumsiness.
Now they can't open the spreadsheet by just clicking on it, and worse yet, they seem to most often do that in the shared departmental folders.
One typical thing that happened was when gradualy transitioning the office newer versions of MS Word, so some people could open .docx documents and some could not. .docx to .doc. Yay! that should work.
The solution? Just rename
Anyway, a long time ago it became obvious that making it difficult for users to change file extensions would reduce support calls, and so here we are now.
As many other posters above me pointed out, the real problem is that the extension is used to determine the file-type association.
It's not about politics, it's about her boyfriend.
The State Departments server can only deliver mail through Earth's Internet.
It's well known that she keeps in touch with P'Lod, her alien lover.
So she needs access to InterGalactic email, which P'Lod got her an account on.
She's not lazy by any means, but keeping track of multiple email accounts is a pain in the neck, so she uses the P'lod one for everything.
If you want some more "facts",
Just search google for: Hillary Clinton P'lod
https://books.google.com/books...
Although what you said was basically true, there is a problem with your position.
The problem is that there is no way to write a law with the intent of preventing abuse of people are too young to be able to form themselves to make reasoned decisions about sex or reproduction other than arbitrarily assigning a numerical age as the borderline.
Consider that there are laws and/or policies against adults of any age having sex with people whom they supervise in a business setting. This is because there is no way of separating choice made through duress frm free choice in those situations.
Judgement is also a driving skill
I wish that I had said that.
If only we could find a way to test for that skill before the crash happens. I suppose the tickets and points system is an after the fact method of finding those people who totally lack judgement skills.
As far as the study of impaired driving goes, I think we could separate out judgement problems by looking at the kinds of crashes.
For example, crashes like rear-enders in rush hour, or in bad weather could be ascribed to momentary lapses.
Crashes while driving twice the speed limit are bad judgement.
Or, Running a red light while passing a line cars stopped for the light.
So then we take those kinds of crashes, see what percent are done by people doing what kind of chemical, or not doing, and compare the numbers to the number of people who are driving stoned at any time.
So, if there are 10,000 crashes we label as judgement problems, and 5% are done by people with marijuana residue in their system, and there are 12% driving while stoned at the time of the crash, then we could suppose marijuana promotes safe driving. Why this is so, that is, what is causal, would be for another study.
Who knows, we may even discover driving while doing meth is a has idea. Maybe arrests for driving 10mph on the interstate will show an association with driving on LSD.
Ok, well not entirely irrelevant.
Many of these posts talk about how driving ability, that is, the ability to navigate a course while drunk or stoned, is not imparied by M.J. except at large doses (unlike alcohol which can make it hard to even go on all-fours in a straight line; I know that for a fact).
So what. Sure, alcohol significantly impairs motor skills and reaction times, but the real problem with alcohol is how it impairs judgement.
While a youngster I did drive wasted. I made an conscious effort to drive as carefully as possible so as to get home, and much more carefully than is my natural inclination.
My experience was that most people I knew lost all common sense when drunk. When they were sober, they would not do the things that I did while I was sober (some would not even ride with me to go get a burger, at least not in my race car), but while drunk they would try anything and even in the rain.
I just don't see that judgement problem with stoned people. I cannot speak from personal experience; I never did toke.
People I knew seem to pretty much drive stoned the same way they did while straight.
Those that drove like my mom when they were straight drove like my mom when they were stoned.
Those that drove like they were trying to get home to beat a diarhea attack when straight drove like that when stoned.
My crazy redneck friends didn't get mellow when they started smoking. They just turned into stoned assholes.
Anyway, I think the whole thing of doing tests on motor-skills while driving is nearly pointless.
Crashes occuring due to insufficient skills are rare compared to numb-skullery.
The real problem with people is that they get into crashes due to their poor judgement. Not watching the road ahead, fooling with the radio, reading the newspaper, fooling with their lunch, trying to one-hand text while driving where children are playing and so on.
In my observations, I don't believe that marijuana affects judgement in the way that alcohol does; it's not even close. If we are going to let people self-medicate, then I believe marijuana is a superior choice.
However, in my experience as a school teacher , something must be done to keep it (any recreational drug) out of the hands of teenagers and children. It is very obvious that many of them lack the ability to control their usage, and they seem to often become damaged in their mental abilities in a way that does not seem to happen to the adults that I knew that started later in life.
I would really really want the children problem solved. I also think that with M.J. legalized, we can do a better job of keeping it away from kids.
We used to do a much better job of keeping alcohol away from teenagers, but I think people have gven up.
US Media Blackout Of Italian Vaccine Ruling
Poor dumbed down Americans will never know the truth.
Rimini: 2012 – Italian Court Rules MMR Vaccine Caused Autism [zengardner.com]
On September 23, 2014, an Italian court in Milan award compensation to a boy for vaccine-induced autism. (See the Italian document here.) A childhood vaccine against six childhood diseases caused the boy’s permanent autism and brain damage.
While the Italian press has devoted considerable attention to this decision and its public health implications, the U.S. press has been silent.
Italy’s National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
Well. yes we've already heard of this in the USA. It's old news.
You may be surprised to learn that the media in the USA is not compelled to print every piece of bullshit that comes up. If you had been awake during the last few decades you would have known that news commentators that get caught telling stories that are later proven to be false are fired without a second chance.
From 2013, here's an article from Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/em...
And another from 2013:
http://www.skepticalraptor.com...
It appears that the courts depended upon the testimony of a single doctor who has never published in a journal, but yet who claims to have a cure for autism.
... if that was true. Several experiments to determine the neutron flux falling with the inverse square law (for a point source) have been done so far. To my knowledge none of them suggested the neutron particles were "leaking" into other dimensions. String theorists, go look elsewhere.
That's the second thing I thought, but what is different in this experiment is that the neutron detector will be heavily shielded from the reactor's neutrons so that the expected flux would be zero at any distance.
If the "brane-leakage" flux is small, then it may have fallen within the error of measurement of a reactor's typical flux.
By expected flux, I mean the flux one would expect if there are no other branes nor cross brane leakage. That is, only neutrons from natural background decays and cosmic rays.
It's a common enough idiom.
There are many common idioms that are used incorrectly in conversation or casual writing. But that doesn't mean they should be used in formal writing, such as an encyclopedia.
Well met, friend, for thou speakst great sooth! Many people have I encountered who are such dullards as to employ incorrectly the English tongue. 'Tis tragedy of the vtmost that the youth of our times know not how the language should properly speak itself. A gay fellow would I be were my fellow man to renew his acquaintance with the King's English.
Alas! but I must forsake thy gentle companie, for mine friends await me in a local hostelrie, and so must I away! Parting is such sweet sorry. Anon, good sir, anon!
Thou'st thou me, thou ill-bred clown?
Get a job as a contracter/sysadmin, and store encrypted copies of all your stuff on the servers in your client's offices around the country.
I would also suggest their desktop computers. The executives desktop computers always have extra space, but they get upgrades too often. I suggest low-level management's and receptionist's desktops. They never get anything new.
The actual survey question is:
“Do you support or oppose the following government policies?”
with several cases, one of which is:
"Mandatory labels on foods containing DNA"
The first thing you should notice is that the word "warning" does not appear. Kudos to the reporters and slashdot poster who either did not read the survey or did not understand what they read.
Almost all foods already have labels, and for most foods (presently) anything more processed than a raw banana must have a label.
So, the question is, should all foods (containing DNA) be required to have a label?
For example, "This is a banana" would meet the definition of the question.
or, "You're looking at a steak"
I can support that, especially for processed foods, and we already have that law, so, yeah, I support mandated labels.
especially for those weird roots that appear in the bin at the grocery store.
WTF is that I ask? I dunno, there's no label.
Look in the sky, see the flock of starlings?
The dark clump of birds that you can see will dart around, sometimes here, sometimes there. It can fly west and yet clump east, time-travel! Must be negative time! Sometimes simultaneously appearing in two places. Faster than light travel! Sometimes no clump can be seen. Where'd they go? Poof, out of existence.
You want a quantum simulator? Starlings, go watch a flock of starlings and apply your quantum equations to their motion.
You may think I'm kidding, but the same problem exists. Just as you can't see the individual bird, only the flock, likewise you've built a bunch of equations for a flock of smaller particles. You can only detect the flock and not the particles.
Keeping with your analogy ... In order to exactly determine the location of each single starling, you need a shotgun(s). Then it no longer is part of the flock now that it has been observed.
As an aside, I am aware that you can shoot at a flock of starlings all day and not hit a one.
This thing only duplicates items that were originally made by a 3D printer that uses that same material.
That is to say, I don't want a teleported camshaft that is printed with a 3D printer that uses chocolate for the printing material.
Well actually I do want that, but I would not put it in an engine.
Nor do I see how something made of materials that aren't available as 3D printer matrix materials could be teleported.
This really intrigues me because it never struck me that this could be a mechanism for antibiotic resistance. It is even more interesting to me knowing the first CRE (Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae)
clearly arose in India [source]
but the reasons weren't clear to me and I just naively assumed it was a random mutation. India, also according to to that same paper has quite a problem with antibiotic resistance which one wouldn't expect as there isn't so much of a problem with antibiotic overuse as there seems to be in the West. So, maybe not so random and maybe we have honed in on a legit reason for growing resistance.
The other problem in India and similar places is that the dosage wasn't what the label said. The doctor may have prescribed 500 mg of amoxicillin, and the patient bought capsules in a bottle labeled 500mg amoxicillin, but what was in those capsules was a fraction of the prescribed dosage.
Case in point is Ranbaxy who sold millions of doses of what they knew was non-performing anti-retroviral drugs.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...
And more like this:
http://fortune.com/2013/05/15/...
http://fortune.com/2013/01/10/...
The bad part is Ranbaxy only got caught because one of their executives was an American who ratted them out.
Ranbaxy only got into trouble because they tried to sell their crap in the USA, otherwise nothing would have happened to them.
There are numerous other drug companies with the same ethics, but they don't try to sell in the USA or Europe, so they'll never get caught.
Another thing I did not know is that the FDA almost never test drugs for efficacy.
What happens is the drug company does the tests and the FDA looks at the drug companies documentation and procedures and signs off on that. This is why cheaters don't get caught - they are grading their own papers, so to speak.
BTW, Ranbaxy was bought by Sun Pharma, so Who Knows where their drugs are going now.
There's a saying that the credit for a discovery goes to the last person who finds it. This is a variation of Stigler's law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
A few ounces of ash isn't going to be replaced by a useful science instrument. If they sent up people's entire remains it'd be a different story.
A whole corpse? That would be awesome, especially when some alien culture opens up the probe and realizes what it is.
Alien Corporal realizes what he's looking at: WTF! WTF! It's some dead guy!
Alien Sarge: A corpse? Is this some kind of joke? Why would they do that? Find the Captain and tell him.
Alien Captain: I bet it's a threat. They're saying this is what they'll do to us.
Alien Captain: We need to hit them first and hit them hard.
Alien Captain: Unlock the weapons cabinets, and make sure every man has his sword and shield.
Most of what people complain about with "government"-run stuff is actually a feature of monopolies. A company's ultimate accountability to its customers is their ability to throw that company over entirely for someone else. But if you are going to have a monopoly anyway, not making it accountable to the people in any other meaningful way (eg: making it government run or regulating it) will only make a bad situation worse.
++, that is the crux of the matter and the answer
In the linked article is the statement:
“Most studies find,” Hood stated, “that lower levels of taxes and spending, less-intrusive regulation correlate with stronger economic performance.”
Sounds pretty, doesn't it? Who could argue against that? Think of the children!!! Mom and apple pie!!!!
What they DON'T tell you is what this weasel phrase "stronger economic performance" means: Does it mean "better service, lower prices and increased customer satisfaction" OR does it really mean "higher profits and f*ck the customer"?
Go on, take a wild guess...
Quoting Buckaroo Banzai:
No on one, yes on two
Be careful what you ask for.
Most /.ers probably are not old enough to remember the days when all telecommunications were regulated under title II. Let's just say that costs were higher, innovation was essentially prohibited, and service was even worse than you can get from Comcast today.
"So, the next time you complain about your phone service, why don't you try using two Dixie cups with a string? We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."
I'm old enough to remember. My families phone number was two letters and 5 digits, and I was a small child when the first direct-dial long distance call was made. I had relatives that were still on party lines.
You are correct in that phone service was expensive compared to today. Long distance calls back then cost far more per hour than almost anyone's hourly pay. However local land-line service was cheap and included in-home service for phones and wiring. Some people went for decades between outages. The primary cause was someone knocking down a pole and breaking the wires.
But today's lower costs are almost entirely due to technological advances and not to de-regularization.
When de-regularization happened, home phone rates went up as telco businesses sprang to to cherry-pick businesses to serve.
(home phone rates in the regulated days were subsidized by higher rates charged to businesses, much like electric rates are set)
However, the good thing about de-regularization was that those new telco businesses now competed on the basis of features, and business phone service competition drove innovation. After that, then home service rates went down (that is, down in inflation adjusted dollars)
But look at the things invented during the regulated phase by Bell Labs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... in the 50's, 60's 70's That is a list of eveyrthing. transisters, lasers, MOSFET, molecular beam epitaxy, Ritchie and Kernigan worked at Bell Labs.
As for "service was even worse than you can get from Comcast today", I do not think that is correct.
My only service requests (and my parents) had been establishing new service when moving, and it was always excellent.
My experience with Comcast (and my neighbors) was shockingly bad. Bad as in refusing to take service requests, bad as in not showing up at all for service requests that had been accepted.and worst of all bad as in having service failures at all.
I have never met anyone whose experience was the opposite of mine regarding telco vs Comcast service, or even modern AT&T vs old AT&T. Service was one thing they did right in the old days..
You don't get it. If you gave him that beer from the community fund, that he himself was contributing to, he didn't get a free beer and might wonder why you were using the community chess to give him a beer, or if that was the wisest use of that money. If the state educational system is funding it, just because a school doesn't see the bill doesn't mean its free. Or, in your case, everything for the school is free because they really aren't paying for anything, they are just workers at the schools. My example is a lot shorter as well!
It drive me nuts when someone makes the argument that something is not free because somebody paid for it somewhere.
It's free to the person who got it and did not pay for it, otherwise the word "free" has no meaning.
Sure, Peachnet is funded ultimately by the State of Georgia taxes and lottery players, and all money ultimately comes from the labor of the proletariat or something like that. The thing is that various entities have their own budgets, whether it's my bank account, schools, or the fire department. And this is not in the budgets of the school systems that are receiving the service.
The fiber rollout to these schools is happening outside their budgets - it's not an item to them.
Nor can they choose to spend the money on something else that they might think is a better use because they never see any money.
The thing is that many, if not most of the schools that are getting the fiber have no money for such things because they have little tax base.
There are 159 counties in Ga, and of those about half have less than 25,000 population. 30 counties have less than 10,000 people. Their tax base is not enough to fund getting fiber, network infrastructure, and support run to anywhere especially for the few students they have. Their contribution to the tax base is a fraction of what they get back.
If the state did not provide the fiber at no cost to them, those schools would have no fiber.
It is irrelevant that there may have been a wiser use of the money because they never had the money.
If you asked me if it was free to the people of the State of Georgia, then no it isn't. The money came out of our pockets.
But it's free to the school systems.
'If you can beat free, then I'm willing to listen.'
Well, someone should tell them its not free, its just that they don't get the bill. Its not clear from the article what the actual cost is.
sigh.
It should be obvious to anyone that read the article that what he meant was free at the endpoint - free to the school that receives the bandwidth.
How can I explain it?
My next door neighbor was working in his garden, and I told him him could take a break and offered him a beer.
I handed him a beer over the fence. He did not give me any money.
He got a free beer.
I know that I had to earn the money to buy the beer,
He got a free beer because he didn't give me any money.
I know that the brewery had to purchase the materials and plant to brew the beer and buy bottles.
But he got a free beer because he didn't have to pay for any of that.
It was a free beer.
That beer was transported on public roads that had been paid for with taxes, and my neighbor pays taxes. but there was no cost to my neighbor for transporting that beer.
It was a still free beer to him.
He got a free beer.
If the word "free" has any meaning at all, then somebody gets something they did not have to give extra money for.
In this case, it's free bandwidth to schools.
If you want to argue that "the money could have been used to buy books instead", I'll tell you that the cost of that beer could have been used to give my neighbor a book. But nonetheless he still got a beer. And it was free.