True, but the point is that it's free to the end point user, who would have nothing otherwise.
Instead of having each of the 6,000 plus schools and colleges run their own network department, each rent bandwidth, and each run a budget item for it, the University System of Georgia pays for it and maintains it. In other words, just like any large corporation would do.
Schools in rural areas an't get high-speed bandwidth through the commercial carriers for anything affordable, and in some rural areas you can't get it at all.
And, once the capital cost of laying the fiber and equipment is done, then it costs a fraction of what the monthly rent from ISPs would be.
If it doesn't store value, how come people give me things for it? What the hell is your definition of value?
Yes, I'd like the pot roast please, here's $40. Well sir, wonderful, looks like you have some value there, but we don't take money, we only take value.
I see where you are coming from, but I think this is what they are saying.
When some people mean "store value", they are thinking that if one hours work gets me money that will buy me 7 gallons of gasoline, or 10 cans of Dinty Moore beef stew, and today I earn $20 for that hour, then that value (of my work) is stored in the money, and I can always get that much goods for that $20.
If a few years later, that $20 can only buy 4 gallons of gas or 5 cans of stew, then the value of one hours work was not stored, but rather lost by converting it into $20 when it was earned.
But the 7 gallons of gasoline will always be worth approximately 10 cans of Dinty Moore regardless of the dollar price. What people want is a "store of value" that will always get you the 10 cans of Dinty Moore for the hour of work you did some years ago.
There have been currencies that have lost all their value - 1920's German marks, whatever they used in Mozambique for example.
Some people believe that a certain weight of gold will always get you the same (within reason) amount of beef stew over the decades, and although that isn't true, but it is closer than most other things that pass for money.
You are mostly water, 70%. Most of water by weight is oxygen by far. (16 parts in 18). So your heavy people plan would mostly sequester oxygen, temporarily.
--PeterM
True for the whole body, but fat is only about 10% water.
Adipose tissue will have a higher water content due to contained blood supply, and water content of the fat cells goes up if the person is in the process of losing weight during a diet. But generally speaking, fat is about 10% water in people.
And we could store carbon on our bodies.
6 billion people gaining an easily attainable 100 pounds each would store 300 million tons. Most of that mass would be carbon.
Every bit helps, I'm sure.
On another note, the article shows people planting trees in a field next to a forest. You don't have to do anything except stop mowing the fields. The trees will fill it in on their own.
Oh, and kill all the elephants. They eat trees.
As for the trees decaying and returning the carbon to the atmosphere, all we have to do is regularly paint the dead trees to keep them from decaying. A layer of tar might work even better.
It's not for credit cards, blackmail, or targeted advertising or any of that small potato stuff.
It's for filing fake claims to insurance companies and medicare.
This is already a 100 million dollar/year business.
TFA calls Gates a pioneer. Well, the covered wagon part is right. Please name something of value that was invented by Gates himself. Give up? Ok, without looking it up.... name something of real scientific or technological value invented by Microsoft Research Labs. That lab allowed Gates to take enormous tax write-offs but never produced any scientific or tecnological break-throughs. But hey, it was all in good tax-dodging fun, right?
Or, you could look up the definition of the word "pioneer". Here you go: "among the first or earliest to enter a new field of inquiry, Enterprise, or progress." Bill Gates and Microsoft clearly meets that definition regarding the personal computer
I’m reminded of a case study that describes an individual who had come to associate sexual arousal with being covered in insects. As a child, that individual had been locked into closets for unimaginable amounts of time, and during those times, bugs would frequently fill the space and crawl on him. The child, trying to seek some sort of escape from the reality of his experience, found comfort only in sexual release—even though he was too young to even know what sex was or meant. His body knew only that it felt good, and it provided the only possible escape available to him.
This is everything you need to know to raise a really interesting child.
Looks like Amazon was being dumb. The problem was not too many hyphens, but rather that there were no hyphens. He had used the minus sign and that breaks some text-speech readers. Graeme has already fixed it.
I've been driving for a few decades and have seen many serious injuries and fatalities, but not a single serious injury or corpse in a rear-end crash...
You've never driven in heavy stop-n-go traffic on the freeway in SoCal then. I have seen cars so smashed you could not tell what the make or model of the vehicle was; sadly I saw a fatality just this summer, a mother and her kids on I-5; people just don't realize that drivers will slow and change lanes to take the exit at Camp Pendleton Traffic will back up there all the way up to the freeway lane.
Not sure why you want to believe that a rear-end accident is nothing to worry about.
Good point - I didn't mean to suggest that rear end crashes are nothing to worry about - Indeed they can be serious. Whiplash is the cause of thousands of paralyzed people every year. I was only pointing out the relative frequency of serious injury in my experience comparing rear-enders to t-bones.
FWIW, I have driven SoCal traffic and it does indeed sux. My previous employer put me in a West Covina motel to commute almost into L.A. for 1-2 months every year for many years. I commuted across Atlanta for several years as well. Comparing the two, I find that Atlanta has a much higher level of ass-holeitude on the Interstates than L.A area, but, and I can't say why, I think the Valley's traffic is more unpleasant. Maybe I'm comparing a-holes to morons.
It is a tiny island. The solution is 4G wireless everywhere and 4G to wifi ports as public endpoints. There will have to be fiber to the towers, but that is a whole bunch simpler if the build-out is done in a grid pattern. Since Cuba is a dictatorship, they can get permits for anything! Someone will have to build a fiber line to Cuba and where it comes from is the political nit.
Cuba is larger than Hungary, or Austria, or Portugal, or Ireland to name a few.
I say give them Comcast! If they don't all hate us now, then they soon will.
"[W]hile right angle crash incidents have been reduced, rear-end crashes that resulted in injuries went up 22 percent." Chicago officials recently claimed that the cameras led to a 47% reduction "T-bone" injury crashes, using that statistic as evidence that the program is worthwhile. But the study's authors, who "accounted for declining accident rates in recent years as well as other confounding factors, found cameras reduced right-angle crashes that caused injuries by just 15 percent."
So the article says rear-end went up 22% and T-bone went down 47%. You have to be suspicious whenever you see a news article that says x went down by y%. per cent of what? What were the base numbers?
Here's some example situations to show why I say that.
suppose before red light camera we had 100 rear-end crashes and 10,000 t-bone crashes at the intersection (all with injuries) suppose after red light, we have 122 rear-end crashes and 5,300 t-bone crashes. That's 22% rear-end up and 47% t-bone down But, the total number of injuries dropped 4,678. That's good isn't it? Redlight cameras must be great!
Or, suppose this: before red-light camera, 10,000 rear-end and 100 t-bone w/injury after red-light camera: 12,200 rear-end and 53 t-bone w/injury again, 22% increase in rear-end and 46% decrease in t-bone. so we had an increase of 2,153 injuries total. Oh my, red-light cameras are killers, aren't they?
I used a wide disparity in the numbers to make my point: you cannot make a useful comparison between percent changes in numbers of two different measurements without knowing the base numbers. That is covered in your freshman "Lying with Statistics 101" class.
So, I read the article in the Tribune (it's free if you give them your email address and live out-of-zone) If you read the Tribune article (and the accompanied "How the Red Light Camera Study was Done" you may come away with a quite different view than the slashdot summary or the ArsTechnica summary. The Tribune article is not as ridiculous as the slashdot summary.
The article does indeed have some raw numbers: Quoted from the Tribune: "In raw numbers at the 90 intersections included in the study, the researchers concluded the cameras prevented as many as 76 right-angle crashes and caused about 54 more rear-end injury crashes. The study said that without the red light cameras about 501 angle crashes would have occurred and only 425 were reported. It also said that there were 296 rear-end injury crashes, and there would have been only 242 had the cameras never been installed."
I've been driving for a few decades and have seen many serious injuries and fatalities, but not a single serious injury or corpse in a rear-end crash. If you give me a choice between trading 76 t-bones crashes for 54 rear-end crashes, I'd take those numbers. As many other posters have observed, t-bone crashes are much more likely to result in serious injuries and deaths than rear-enders.
The two Tribune articles also covers some of the crookedness associated with Chicago's use of the cameras. They are both a good read and covers a lot of why you should be careful about these numbers and problems associated with the data.
Probably not, I may be wrong, ( and please correct me if I'm wrong ) but the spermatogonium you start out with duplicate themselves through your life and the only mutations come from copy errors during the mitosis and meosis stages; toxic chemicals, radiation and so on.
I don't believe the methylation of DNA in muscle (or any other) cells can migrate to the spermatogonium. Nor can any other DNA change that occurs elsewhere in the body migrate into the reproductive cells.
That is an interesting statement. I would love to see some proof of that.
Wouldn't a one-shot event with a delayed consequence have causation without correlation? I speculate that there can't be correlation between non-repeating, non-simultaneous events.
You are correct, it is possible to have a causal relationship that does not result in a correlation. This occurs if the consequence of the cause has a mediating factor occurring before the consequence, and the mediating factor varies in some way that is not dependent upon the causal action. Here's a simplified example: There are causes that make stock market prices vary, but the direction of the price depends upon how the information regarding the event is presented. Falling oil prices cause oil company share prices to vary, but whether they rise or fall depends upon how the news media presents the cause and expected outcome - something that may depend upon political factors (Let's punish Russia!), or whether it is presented as "the sky is falling" or "buy opportunity" which may be influenced by the news reporting advertiser's needs.
I recognize that vaccinations save tens of thousands of lives every year: 100 deaths prevented from chicken pox; 400-500 deaths from measles; 1,000 from polio; over 15,000 from diphtheria. And let's not forget the millions of others who suffered from these diseases without dying. Without a doubt, vaccines have been one of the most brilliant inventions that have made an incredible positive improvement to the quality of life in our society.
But our body is our own. Period. We cannot cross this line. If someone conscientiously objects to a treatment, it is their natural right to decline it.
And if we violate this tenant even in the name of vaccinations, it can be violated any other way "for the greater good." And that's a very, very dangerous precedent to make.
I quit agree. vaccinations should be voluntary. And those people who don't want to participate in a civilized modern society can move to Africa or someplace where you won't be imposed upon by these rules.. I know it sounds like the "love it or leave it" trope from the 60's, but I'm serious. If people want to have the benefits of a modern society, then they should participate in it or leave. We already have enough parasites of all kinds.
One of the religious prohibitions in Islam is making war with fire.
If this is used it will be interesting to see the effects on recruiting by the Islamic State and other anti-US organizations among those Muslims who are currently either opposed to them or unaligned.
Also: How do you keep a 30 kW laser, at any frequency, from blinding everybody in the general direction of the target? The last I heard, weapons that blind are banned by the current "laws of war" as recognized by the western powers - and that's been the major impeidment so far to deploying laser (and other directed energy) weapons. Has something changed? Or did the current administration just decide to play with the new toy despite past promises to the other kids?
Re ban on blinding weapons. Here's the Geneva Conventional protocol on Blinding Weapons: https://www.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO... Article 3: Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol.
In fact, its computers and its processors are 12 years old
They word it like NASA is dumpster diving for its flight computers these days. The CPU may be from what was new 12 years ago, but I seriously doubt the physical unit is actually 12 years old.
It's also hardened against radiation. I would be willing to bet that any processor in these systems will still be functional long after most newfangled home CPUs are long dead. These flight computers will be remain functional in an extremely harsh environment longer than any home CPU would last. Even with how pampered home processors are in comparison.
If those old computers were any good, then the Voyagers would still be working. Oh wait... http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/
I was dubious until I read this sentence. "The menu then uses a powerful mathematical algorithm to identify, from 4896 possible ingredient combinations, the customer's perfect pizza."
When I found out that it wasn't just any mathematical algorithm, but rather a powerful one, then I knew that this would be the ordering technology for me. The only catch seems to be that the end result will be always be a Pizza Hut product.
Simple: women aren't built like men, to communicate simply and honestly BY MALE STANDARDS. INB4 "you misogynist" INB4 "you neckbeard" etc etc etc ad nauseam...
After enough direct face-to-wall repeated contact with the above, men begin to see the pattern and make choices / decisions based on it, whether that be passive/aggressive shit or simple setting of boundaries.
Q E D
There is no QED in what you said. Your proof fails by counter-example. Most, in fact nearly all of the women I know are as straightforward and honest as any person. Just for starters, if you spend some time (as I did in my old job) with women in the US military, you would have many very clear-cut counter-examples. But other places I've worked and associated with also were populated with women who are not as you describe... having "passive/aggressive shit". Female doctors are another example as well as the female sys-admins I've known.
If you don't know any women who communicate simply and honestly BY MALE STANDARDS, that is because you either don't know many women or because your prejudices prevent you from recognizing simple and honest communication from a female.
Slashdot Mirror
Surely it's not free to the taxpayers.
True, but the point is that it's free to the end point user, who would have nothing otherwise.
Instead of having each of the 6,000 plus schools and colleges run their own network department, each rent bandwidth, and each run a budget item for it, the University System of Georgia pays for it and maintains it. In other words, just like any large corporation would do. Schools in rural areas an't get high-speed bandwidth through the commercial carriers for anything affordable, and in some rural areas you can't get it at all. And, once the capital cost of laying the fiber and equipment is done, then it costs a fraction of what the monthly rent from ISPs would be.
From the article:
"Squirrels in Georgia like their fiber, there are always squirrels chewing on fiber lines somewhere, "
Thank you slashdot for continuing to warn society about the ever present squirrel menace: http://hardware.slashdot.org/s... http://beta.slashdot.org/submi... https://www.google.com/#q=slas...
If it doesn't store value, how come people give me things for it? What the hell is your definition of value?
Yes, I'd like the pot roast please, here's $40. Well sir, wonderful, looks like you have some value there, but we don't take money, we only take value.
I see where you are coming from, but I think this is what they are saying.
When some people mean "store value", they are thinking that if one hours work gets me money that will buy me 7 gallons of gasoline, or 10 cans of Dinty Moore beef stew, and today I earn $20 for that hour, then that value (of my work) is stored in the money, and I can always get that much goods for that $20.
If a few years later, that $20 can only buy 4 gallons of gas or 5 cans of stew, then the value of one hours work was not stored, but rather lost by converting it into $20 when it was earned.
But the 7 gallons of gasoline will always be worth approximately 10 cans of Dinty Moore regardless of the dollar price. What people want is a "store of value" that will always get you the 10 cans of Dinty Moore for the hour of work you did some years ago. There have been currencies that have lost all their value - 1920's German marks, whatever they used in Mozambique for example. Some people believe that a certain weight of gold will always get you the same (within reason) amount of beef stew over the decades, and although that isn't true, but it is closer than most other things that pass for money.
I haven't kept up, but TRON used to be the dominant embedded OS. Has it fallen by the wayside, and if so, what's replacing it?
You are mostly water, 70%. Most of water by weight is oxygen by far. (16 parts in 18). So your heavy people plan would mostly sequester oxygen, temporarily.
--PeterM
True for the whole body, but fat is only about 10% water. Adipose tissue will have a higher water content due to contained blood supply, and water content of the fat cells goes up if the person is in the process of losing weight during a diet. But generally speaking, fat is about 10% water in people.
And we could store carbon on our bodies.
6 billion people gaining an easily attainable 100 pounds each would store 300 million tons. Most of that mass would be carbon.
Every bit helps, I'm sure.
On another note, the article shows people planting trees in a field next to a forest. You don't have to do anything except stop mowing the fields. The trees will fill it in on their own.
Oh, and kill all the elephants. They eat trees.
As for the trees decaying and returning the carbon to the atmosphere, all we have to do is regularly paint the dead trees to keep them from decaying. A layer of tar might work even better.
It's not for credit cards, blackmail, or targeted advertising or any of that small potato stuff.
It's for filing fake claims to insurance companies and medicare.
This is already a 100 million dollar/year business.
TFA calls Gates a pioneer. Well, the covered wagon part is right. Please name something of value that was invented by Gates himself. Give up? Ok, without looking it up.... name something of real scientific or technological value invented by Microsoft Research Labs. That lab allowed Gates to take enormous tax write-offs but never produced any scientific or tecnological break-throughs. But hey, it was all in good tax-dodging fun, right?
Or, you could look up the definition of the word "pioneer".
Here you go: "among the first or earliest to enter a new field of inquiry, Enterprise, or progress."
Bill Gates and Microsoft clearly meets that definition regarding the personal computer
As other people have pointed out, Occam's razor does NOT apply in International Politics.
It's a good tool, but it's the wrong tool for this job.
Anyone on /. who does not know what ddos means should be condemned to a lifetime of reading DOS boot disks in binary with a plastic monacle.
I do know what ddos means, but I'd really really like to have a plastic monocle.
Can you fix me up?
Thanks,
Kim
From the linked article:
I’m reminded of a case study that describes an individual who had come to associate sexual arousal with being covered in insects. As a child, that individual had been locked into closets for unimaginable amounts of time, and during those times, bugs would frequently fill the space and crawl on him. The child, trying to seek some sort of escape from the reality of his experience, found comfort only in sexual release—even though he was too young to even know what sex was or meant. His body knew only that it felt good, and it provided the only possible escape available to him.
This is everything you need to know to raise a really interesting child.
Looks like Amazon was being dumb.
The problem was not too many hyphens, but rather that there were no hyphens. He had used the minus sign and that breaks some text-speech readers.
Graeme has already fixed it.
This is Graeme's blog telling the story, the problem, and the fix.
https://graemereynolds.wordpre...
I've been driving for a few decades and have seen many serious injuries and fatalities, but not a single serious injury or corpse in a rear-end crash...
You've never driven in heavy stop-n-go traffic on the freeway in SoCal then. I have seen cars so smashed you could not tell what the make or model of the vehicle was; sadly I saw a fatality just this summer, a mother and her kids on I-5; people just don't realize that drivers will slow and change lanes to take the exit at Camp Pendleton Traffic will back up there all the way up to the freeway lane.
Not sure why you want to believe that a rear-end accident is nothing to worry about.
Good point - I didn't mean to suggest that rear end crashes are nothing to worry about - Indeed they can be serious. Whiplash is the cause of thousands of paralyzed people every year. I was only pointing out the relative frequency of serious injury in my experience comparing rear-enders to t-bones.
FWIW, I have driven SoCal traffic and it does indeed sux. My previous employer put me in a West Covina motel to commute almost into L.A. for 1-2 months every year for many years.
I commuted across Atlanta for several years as well. Comparing the two, I find that Atlanta has a much higher level of ass-holeitude on the Interstates than L.A area, but, and I can't say why, I think the Valley's traffic is more unpleasant. Maybe I'm comparing a-holes to morons.
It is a tiny island. The solution is 4G wireless everywhere and 4G to wifi ports as public endpoints. There will have to be fiber to the towers, but that is a whole bunch simpler if the build-out is done in a grid pattern. Since Cuba is a dictatorship, they can get permits for anything! Someone will have to build a fiber line to Cuba and where it comes from is the political nit.
Cuba is larger than Hungary, or Austria, or Portugal, or Ireland to name a few.
I say give them Comcast! If they don't all hate us now, then they soon will.
"[W]hile right angle crash incidents have been reduced, rear-end crashes that resulted in injuries went up 22 percent." Chicago officials recently claimed that the cameras led to a 47% reduction "T-bone" injury crashes, using that statistic as evidence that the program is worthwhile. But the study's authors, who "accounted for declining accident rates in recent years as well as other confounding factors, found cameras reduced right-angle crashes that caused injuries by just 15 percent."
So the article says rear-end went up 22% and T-bone went down 47%. You have to be suspicious whenever you see a news article that says x went down by y%.
per cent of what? What were the base numbers?
Here's some example situations to show why I say that.
suppose before red light camera we had 100 rear-end crashes and 10,000 t-bone crashes at the intersection (all with injuries)
suppose after red light, we have 122 rear-end crashes and 5,300 t-bone crashes. That's 22% rear-end up and 47% t-bone down
But, the total number of injuries dropped 4,678. That's good isn't it? Redlight cameras must be great!
Or, suppose this:
before red-light camera, 10,000 rear-end and 100 t-bone w/injury
after red-light camera: 12,200 rear-end and 53 t-bone w/injury again, 22% increase in rear-end and 46% decrease in t-bone.
so we had an increase of 2,153 injuries total. Oh my, red-light cameras are killers, aren't they?
I used a wide disparity in the numbers to make my point: you cannot make a useful comparison between percent changes in numbers of two different measurements without knowing the base numbers. That is covered in your freshman "Lying with Statistics 101" class.
So, I read the article in the Tribune (it's free if you give them your email address and live out-of-zone)
If you read the Tribune article (and the accompanied "How the Red Light Camera Study was Done" you may come away with a quite different view than the slashdot summary or the ArsTechnica summary. The Tribune article is not as ridiculous as the slashdot summary.
The article does indeed have some raw numbers:
Quoted from the Tribune:
"In raw numbers at the 90 intersections included in the study, the researchers concluded the cameras prevented as many as 76 right-angle crashes and caused about 54 more rear-end injury crashes. The study said that without the red light cameras about 501 angle crashes would have occurred and only 425 were reported. It also said that there were 296 rear-end injury crashes, and there would have been only 242 had the cameras never been installed."
I've been driving for a few decades and have seen many serious injuries and fatalities, but not a single serious injury or corpse in a rear-end crash.
If you give me a choice between trading 76 t-bones crashes for 54 rear-end crashes, I'd take those numbers. As many other posters have observed, t-bone crashes are much more likely to result in serious injuries and deaths than rear-enders.
The two Tribune articles also covers some of the crookedness associated with Chicago's use of the cameras. They are both a good read and covers a lot of why you should be careful about these numbers and problems associated with the data.
3) And I've worked wit pyro guys who I KNEW were perma-stoned.
Do you happen to know if they're hiring?
Probably not,
I may be wrong, ( and please correct me if I'm wrong ) but the spermatogonium you start out with duplicate themselves through your life and the only mutations come from copy errors during the mitosis and meosis stages; toxic chemicals, radiation and so on.
I don't believe the methylation of DNA in muscle (or any other) cells can migrate to the spermatogonium. Nor can any other DNA change that occurs elsewhere in the body migrate into the reproductive cells.
There can't be causation without correlation.
That is an interesting statement. I would love to see some proof of that.
Wouldn't a one-shot event with a delayed consequence have causation without correlation?
I speculate that there can't be correlation between non-repeating, non-simultaneous events.
You are correct, it is possible to have a causal relationship that does not result in a correlation.
This occurs if the consequence of the cause has a mediating factor occurring before the consequence, and the mediating factor varies in some way that is not dependent upon the causal action.
Here's a simplified example:
There are causes that make stock market prices vary, but the direction of the price depends upon how the information regarding the event is presented.
Falling oil prices cause oil company share prices to vary, but whether they rise or fall depends upon how the news media presents the cause and expected outcome - something that may depend upon political factors (Let's punish Russia!), or whether it is presented as "the sky is falling" or "buy opportunity" which may be influenced by the news reporting advertiser's needs.
I'll wait for Bennett's concise piece on the subject and how it relates to the classic Burning Man Ice Problem.
No ice for you!
Next!
Harrison Ford apparently thinks the script is "the best thing (he's) ever read."
I'll wait for Buster Friendly to weigh in on the truth of that.
In the meantime, just go and do your task, even though you know it's wrong.
I recognize that vaccinations save tens of thousands of lives every year: 100 deaths prevented from chicken pox; 400-500 deaths from measles; 1,000 from polio; over 15,000 from diphtheria. And let's not forget the millions of others who suffered from these diseases without dying. Without a doubt, vaccines have been one of the most brilliant inventions that have made an incredible positive improvement to the quality of life in our society.
But our body is our own. Period. We cannot cross this line. If someone conscientiously objects to a treatment, it is their natural right to decline it.
And if we violate this tenant even in the name of vaccinations, it can be violated any other way "for the greater good." And that's a very, very dangerous precedent to make.
I quit agree. vaccinations should be voluntary.
And those people who don't want to participate in a civilized modern society can move to Africa or someplace where you won't be imposed upon by these rules..
I know it sounds like the "love it or leave it" trope from the 60's, but I'm serious. If people want to have the benefits of a modern society, then they should participate in it or leave. We already have enough parasites of all kinds.
One of the religious prohibitions in Islam is making war with fire.
If this is used it will be interesting to see the effects on recruiting by the Islamic State and other anti-US organizations among those Muslims who are currently either opposed to them or unaligned.
Also: How do you keep a 30 kW laser, at any frequency, from blinding everybody in the general direction of the target? The last I heard, weapons that blind are banned by the current "laws of war" as recognized by the western powers - and that's been the major impeidment so far to deploying laser (and other directed energy) weapons. Has something changed? Or did the current administration just decide to play with the new toy despite past promises to the other kids?
Re ban on blinding weapons. Here's the Geneva Conventional protocol on Blinding Weapons:
https://www.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO...
Article 3:
Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol.
In fact, its computers and its processors are 12 years old
They word it like NASA is dumpster diving for its flight computers these days. The CPU may be from what was new 12 years ago, but I seriously doubt the physical unit is actually 12 years old.
It's also hardened against radiation. I would be willing to bet that any processor in these systems will still be functional long after most newfangled home CPUs are long dead. These flight computers will be remain functional in an extremely harsh environment longer than any home CPU would last. Even with how pampered home processors are in comparison.
If those old computers were any good, then the Voyagers would still be working. ...
Oh wait
http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/
I was dubious until I read this sentence.
"The menu then uses a powerful mathematical algorithm to identify, from 4896 possible ingredient combinations, the customer's perfect pizza."
When I found out that it wasn't just any mathematical algorithm, but rather a powerful one, then I knew that this would be the ordering technology for me.
The only catch seems to be that the end result will be always be a Pizza Hut product.
Simple: women aren't built like men, to communicate simply and honestly BY MALE STANDARDS. INB4 "you misogynist" INB4 "you neckbeard" etc etc etc ad nauseam...
After enough direct face-to-wall repeated contact with the above, men begin to see the pattern and make choices / decisions based on it, whether that be passive/aggressive shit or simple setting of boundaries.
Q
E
D
There is no QED in what you said. Your proof fails by counter-example. ... having "passive/aggressive shit". Female doctors are another example as well as the female sys-admins I've known.
Most, in fact nearly all of the women I know are as straightforward and honest as any person.
Just for starters, if you spend some time (as I did in my old job) with women in the US military, you would have many very clear-cut counter-examples. But other places I've worked and associated with also were populated with women who are not as you describe
If you don't know any women who communicate simply and honestly BY MALE STANDARDS, that is because you either don't know many women or because your prejudices prevent you from recognizing simple and honest communication from a female.