Yet that's exactly how cars have been sold in this country for decades - the government telling auto makers, "you can't sell directly to the public, you have to set up dealerships."
Right... And now they're finally realising that that's a stupid restriction to place that has no benefit and arbitrarily restricts trade.
Obviously, it's not a legal barrier, since dozens of other car companies have followed this model for a long, long time. It seems to me the real issue at hand is that Tesla wants an exception made to the law, just for them. Now that would be unconstitutional.
No, Tesla wants state laws changed so that they're in line with federal laws allowing Tesla to trade across state boundaries as it pleases, rather than being told it's not allowed to trade with certain people in certain states.
The entire premise here is that the knowledge of how to make these things has been lost, as have the production facilities, as have the power plants that used to power them.
You can't just go "I know, today I'm going to make a solar panel", you need tons of precursor techs before you can do that. The root of that tree is needing to set things on fire to get energy to start building the most basic forms of anything.
And how do you build a dam for the hydroelectric plant, or smelt the steel/aluminium for the windmills without having produced any energy yet?
The bottom line is that in order to bootstrap civilisation you need trivially easily exploitable sources of energy. Building a giant dam is not trivially easily exploitable. Setting things on fire is. Without the easily accessible sources of things to set on fire that burn efficiently, bootstrapping civilisation would be incredibly difficult.
Because allowing a state to say "you're allowed to sell it, as long as you sell it this way" is effectively the same as allowing a state to say "you're not allowed to sell it", because then the state can say "you're allowed to sell it, as long as you sell it on the 29th of February, in the cellar, with the lights off, with no stairs to the cellar, with all produce hidden in a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory, with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'".
The problem is that getting those elements back requires energy in most cases. The exact elements that the grand parent was referring to are the ones that allow us to get started producing energy with which to do useful things. Sure, all the elements for oil still exist, but the actual oil doesn't, and to get the oil, we need energy.
70% of the time over the ocean, 99.99% of the time over somewhere that isn't populated. It's a 1 in 10,000 occurrence that this happens over a populated area. Given a rate of 2 a year, that means once every 5000 years on average, and many of these will not do any damage. So I'd say this is pretty much pure hype.
Actually, you (oddly) do very much care about speed in OpenSSL. One of the most successful types of attack against security algorithms involves measuring how long it takes to do things, and inferring the complexity of the calculation from that. Taking any significant amount of time makes measurement easier, and errors smaller, and hence this type of attack easier.
Why do they need to be experts? Who said that it was because they were astronauts that we should believe them, and not because they have a valid point?
Ah sorry, I simply misread then. I assumed that it was a simple typo for "hydroponics light" - as in, a light used for growing things using hydroponics. It didn't even occur to me that it could be misinterpreted.
If you can get there in 11 years, you would have to be travelling at 45 times the speed of light on average. Since you can't accelerate to, or above the speed of light, you're either assuming that you started above the speed of light, or your maths is really badly wrong.
You're missing the point. We all know our options for how and where to invest money. The point is that the root of this chat thread talks about "it's simple to save a million dollars, just stick $5000 into a typical savings account a year". That's why people are discussing savings accounts.
The sum, from i = 25 to 0, of 5000 * (1.138 ^ i) is just barely over a million. So for the maths to stack up, you need to be being paid 14% interest. That's not even close to reality.
Well, with your maths, it's not surprising that you think it's easy to become a millionaire. Unless you think your working life is 200 years long. That, or you think a typical savings account pays nearly 14% interest. Both of which are... Rather off the scale.
Poor white people are not nearly as violent as poor black people. Check the stats yourself. Blacks are about 13-14% of the population but they commit 50% of the murders alone (usually they murder other blacks).
As much as your racist mindset would like that to support your conclusion. It simply doesn't. Being 13-14% of the population does not imply being an even distribution within the demographics of the population. If all 75% of that 13-14% is poor (not unreasonable), but only 10% of the white people are poor (also not unreasonable), then that would give you pretty much the exact same number of poor people of either race. The result - an unsurprising 50/50 split in crime rates too.
Ever wonder why things never change?
No, because it's clear. 1) They do change. We've gone from blacks, women and gays (amongst many others) being ostracised, to many of them being productive members of society, and people like you being frowned upon. That's great! 2) The change is slow, exactly because of people like you, trying very very hard to make sure that these people get held back as much as you can. Thankfully idiots like you are getting rarer and rarer.
At one time it was not politically correct to advocate heliocentrism either. But it was still a fact.
That's an interesting comparison. You seem to be suggesting that we generally go from poor understanding of the situation, to more enlightened understanding of the situation. That our knowledge of the situation improves. One way that this has improved is that we've realised that the earth is not the centre of the universe, and then even realised that neither is the sun. Another way is that in the past, we thought that blacks, women and gays were somehow inferior, and not just normal human beings who happened to have a different pigmentation, sexual organ, or preference. Thankfully we've advanced past that point now.
Black men can start by seriously trying to parent their children instead of leaving them to be raised by single mothers in broken homes in bad neighbourhoods.
This is almost as laughable as "The poor just need to stop being poor, then they could afford health care."
Yes... and as I said, this is completely missing the point. Holes in language implementations can be fixed as they come up. Bugs that are caused because of bad language design, and lack of the language helping the developer hold all the necessary concepts in their head at once, those can not trivially be fixed like language implementation errors. Not only that, but they'll be several orders of magnitude more common.
An example. A language with a decent type system can completely eliminate SQL injection attacks, and invalid pointer dereferences. A language with a dependant type system can completely eliminate buffer overruns.
There are huge classes of security holes and bugs that can be prevented from happening entirely by the language.
The point is that not too long ago, property values were only around 4-4.5 times the value of a normal wage. Now, even on a very high engineer's wage (around 150-200k) in the bay area you're looking at about 6-8 times the value of your wage. On an more average wage, more like 10-15 times.
Unfortunately for you, creating ghettos for the benefit of the rich has had a history of being a pretty amazingly bad plan. SF needs to figure out how to deal with this properly and fast (generally, the answer is, build more houses, faster).
Yes... That's my point. This is exactly what they should be testing for - does the language allow you to do dumb things, or does it moan at the first sign of something that could be insecure? This is what they should have tested. Not whether the implementations were any good.
php is not the worst because they measured completely the wrong thing. They measured how many bugs they found in the implementation of the language, not how many bugs a programmer using that language would introduce that the language would not catch for them.
They shouldn't be looking at the number of bugs in the implementation of the language. They should be looking at the bugginess (or not) of the code written in it. That's the important thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet that's exactly how cars have been sold in this country for decades - the government telling auto makers, "you can't sell directly to the public, you have to set up dealerships."
Right... And now they're finally realising that that's a stupid restriction to place that has no benefit and arbitrarily restricts trade.
Obviously, it's not a legal barrier, since dozens of other car companies have followed this model for a long, long time. It seems to me the real issue at hand is that Tesla wants an exception made to the law, just for them. Now that would be unconstitutional.
No, Tesla wants state laws changed so that they're in line with federal laws allowing Tesla to trade across state boundaries as it pleases, rather than being told it's not allowed to trade with certain people in certain states.
Solar panels that you made how?
The entire premise here is that the knowledge of how to make these things has been lost, as have the production facilities, as have the power plants that used to power them.
You can't just go "I know, today I'm going to make a solar panel", you need tons of precursor techs before you can do that. The root of that tree is needing to set things on fire to get energy to start building the most basic forms of anything.
And how do you build a dam for the hydroelectric plant, or smelt the steel/aluminium for the windmills without having produced any energy yet?
The bottom line is that in order to bootstrap civilisation you need trivially easily exploitable sources of energy. Building a giant dam is not trivially easily exploitable. Setting things on fire is. Without the easily accessible sources of things to set on fire that burn efficiently, bootstrapping civilisation would be incredibly difficult.
Because allowing a state to say "you're allowed to sell it, as long as you sell it this way" is effectively the same as allowing a state to say "you're not allowed to sell it", because then the state can say "you're allowed to sell it, as long as you sell it on the 29th of February, in the cellar, with the lights off, with no stairs to the cellar, with all produce hidden in a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory, with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'".
The problem is that getting those elements back requires energy in most cases. The exact elements that the grand parent was referring to are the ones that allow us to get started producing energy with which to do useful things. Sure, all the elements for oil still exist, but the actual oil doesn't, and to get the oil, we need energy.
70% of the time over the ocean, 99.99% of the time over somewhere that isn't populated. It's a 1 in 10,000 occurrence that this happens over a populated area. Given a rate of 2 a year, that means once every 5000 years on average, and many of these will not do any damage. So I'd say this is pretty much pure hype.
Actually, you (oddly) do very much care about speed in OpenSSL. One of the most successful types of attack against security algorithms involves measuring how long it takes to do things, and inferring the complexity of the calculation from that. Taking any significant amount of time makes measurement easier, and errors smaller, and hence this type of attack easier.
Why do they need to be experts? Who said that it was because they were astronauts that we should believe them, and not because they have a valid point?
Because often, what you can't see is as important as what you can. Imagination is important. Composition is important, and emotion is important.
No, the plan was to land in the sea, and to have helicopters near by. Only in the future do they plan to do very accurate landings.
Ah sorry, I simply misread then. I assumed that it was a simple typo for "hydroponics light" - as in, a light used for growing things using hydroponics. It didn't even occur to me that it could be misinterpreted.
They don't care if it's inefficient, they just tap into the neighbouring house's electricity meter, or tap into the line into the house directly.
If you can get there in 11 years, you would have to be travelling at 45 times the speed of light on average. Since you can't accelerate to, or above the speed of light, you're either assuming that you started above the speed of light, or your maths is really badly wrong.
You're missing the point. We all know our options for how and where to invest money. The point is that the root of this chat thread talks about "it's simple to save a million dollars, just stick $5000 into a typical savings account a year". That's why people are discussing savings accounts.
Because the grand parent specified a typical savings account explicitly.
No, we can do compound interest maths...
The sum, from i = 25 to 0, of 5000 * (1.138 ^ i) is just barely over a million. So for the maths to stack up, you need to be being paid 14% interest. That's not even close to reality.
Well, with your maths, it's not surprising that you think it's easy to become a millionaire. Unless you think your working life is 200 years long. That, or you think a typical savings account pays nearly 14% interest. Both of which are... Rather off the scale.
Poor white people are not nearly as violent as poor black people. Check the stats yourself. Blacks are about 13-14% of the population but they commit 50% of the murders alone (usually they murder other blacks).
As much as your racist mindset would like that to support your conclusion. It simply doesn't. Being 13-14% of the population does not imply being an even distribution within the demographics of the population. If all 75% of that 13-14% is poor (not unreasonable), but only 10% of the white people are poor (also not unreasonable), then that would give you pretty much the exact same number of poor people of either race. The result - an unsurprising 50/50 split in crime rates too.
Ever wonder why things never change?
No, because it's clear.
1) They do change. We've gone from blacks, women and gays (amongst many others) being ostracised, to many of them being productive members of society, and people like you being frowned upon. That's great!
2) The change is slow, exactly because of people like you, trying very very hard to make sure that these people get held back as much as you can. Thankfully idiots like you are getting rarer and rarer.
At one time it was not politically correct to advocate heliocentrism either. But it was still a fact.
That's an interesting comparison. You seem to be suggesting that we generally go from poor understanding of the situation, to more enlightened understanding of the situation. That our knowledge of the situation improves. One way that this has improved is that we've realised that the earth is not the centre of the universe, and then even realised that neither is the sun. Another way is that in the past, we thought that blacks, women and gays were somehow inferior, and not just normal human beings who happened to have a different pigmentation, sexual organ, or preference. Thankfully we've advanced past that point now.
Black men can start by seriously trying to parent their children instead of leaving them to be raised by single mothers in broken homes in bad neighbourhoods.
This is almost as laughable as "The poor just need to stop being poor, then they could afford health care."
Yes... and as I said, this is completely missing the point. Holes in language implementations can be fixed as they come up. Bugs that are caused because of bad language design, and lack of the language helping the developer hold all the necessary concepts in their head at once, those can not trivially be fixed like language implementation errors. Not only that, but they'll be several orders of magnitude more common.
An example. A language with a decent type system can completely eliminate SQL injection attacks, and invalid pointer dereferences. A language with a dependant type system can completely eliminate buffer overruns.
There are huge classes of security holes and bugs that can be prevented from happening entirely by the language.
That's a bit of a straw man.
The point is that not too long ago, property values were only around 4-4.5 times the value of a normal wage. Now, even on a very high engineer's wage (around 150-200k) in the bay area you're looking at about 6-8 times the value of your wage. On an more average wage, more like 10-15 times.
Prices really have got very out of control.
s/black/poor/ and you might have a point.
Unfortunately for you, creating ghettos for the benefit of the rich has had a history of being a pretty amazingly bad plan. SF needs to figure out how to deal with this properly and fast (generally, the answer is, build more houses, faster).
Not when they're in NYC they don't. And people doing the jobs listed above get paid far less than the salaries listed above when they're not in NYC.
Yes... That's my point. This is exactly what they should be testing for - does the language allow you to do dumb things, or does it moan at the first sign of something that could be insecure? This is what they should have tested. Not whether the implementations were any good.
php is not the worst because they measured completely the wrong thing. They measured how many bugs they found in the implementation of the language, not how many bugs a programmer using that language would introduce that the language would not catch for them.
They shouldn't be looking at the number of bugs in the implementation of the language. They should be looking at the bugginess (or not) of the code written in it. That's the important thing.