Tesla is getting the shaft. They're doing some interesting things, and there was a point I could actually afford and want one of their cars... but I live in an area without lots of charging options.
On one hand, that newspaper review was borderline libel. They have the records backing them up and proved the newspaper reporter was a liar... though somehow the writer is trying to defend himself.
But Top Gear... I only watch it every now and then and it's pretty clear that a lot of their "reviews" are a bit sensationalized / comedic / petty. My "favorite" was when they found out the Cadillac CTS-V was actually a decent sports car... so they had to harp that the bell constantly chimed when the door was open. He showed the bit like 5+ times throughout the review and whined that "yes we know the door is open." Yet they failed to mention they left their KEYS in the ignition so the bell/chime was really saying "dude you left your keys in a car with an open door" At least the guy had to say "I can't believe I am going to say this, but this car is actually decent"
There have been others. The guys often have their minds made up about how much they dislike a car/company early on and decide to do comedy bits about this-or-that.
So really, you can't really be surprised that Top Gear decided to mock the Tesla for no reason. It's like if you decided to appear on on one of those old day talk shows like "Jerry Springer" and are surprised they decided to hit you with a "gotcha" or surprise pregnancy... what did you THINK was going to happen?
You think digital watches are pretty neat? That's so amazingly primitive.
I don't mean neat as in "it's so cool how they work" but I think some of the designs of the ones I have are neat. A little different and colorful. Though I still think the primitive automatic / analog watches are "neat" considering how well they function with such relatively old tech. Plus the transparent back lets me see the gears and such move.
I mostly just wear the digitals when either A) I'm going somewhere that I need a cheap watch or B) I know that I'm going to need an easy-to-read stopwatch that day.
Not to mention the weight saved by "armor" for the lack of a better term.
If this thing is going to be constantly bouncing into things... by DESIGN... then it's going to have to be able to take a heavier beating than something that will try to avoid bouncing into things all-together.
I love watches: mostly purely mechanical (automatic) watches. I have a couple of them: ranging from hundreds of dollars to $2,000. I think they're great, and love the mechanical nature. I have a couple of digital ones because I think they're neat, but I don't wear them that often. The digitals are also cheap so when I wear them when I travel or something.
That being said: I can't imagine myself getting this one. Sure, on one hand I guess it's interesting... but no.
As it stands, a watch is pretty much just jewelry now-a-days... clocks are everywhere and most of us already have cellphones to check the time. Now to put an iOS device on your wrist instead of your pocket. No thanks.
I mean, I could see wanting to get the Google Goggles more than this thing and THAT's saying something.
Well, like I said in my post... the drivers are just about as stupid. And more dangerous to others.
My response is to people that A) think more people should drive their bikes (like them) and B) think that magic should protect their stupidity.
My head-scratcher is... in a car, I can understand an idiot making a mistake due to a false sense of safety. They're sitting in the big comfortable armored thing with seatbelts, air bags, armor, and crumple zones. So it might escape an idiot that their doing something stupid. Obviously they're still in danger and a MAJOR dangers to others, but I guess I can understand that "disconnect" if it doesn't hit them. After all: idiots.
On a bicycle... you're about as vulnerable as you can get. One of these stupid mistakes... and you're road-kill. Literally. So you'd think that being so incredibly vulnerable, you'd be more careful. Yet they're just as reckless as when they drive.
It's like walking along a concrete road vs a fragile rope bridge. You'd THINK that the guy would walk careful and be hyper vigilant on the rope bridge. But instead, they're walking-while-texting and not watching their foot-falls.
Which means that someone in a car who cannot prevent the bloody fireworks display on their dash. Now they have to live with THAT. And get sued to oblivion.
Well, like I said in my post... the drivers are just about as stupid.
But my head-scratcher is... in a car, I can understand an idiot making a mistake due to a false sense of safety. They're sitting in the big comfortable armored thing with seatbelts, air bags, armor, and crumple zones. So it might escape an idiot that their doing something stupid. Obviously they're still in danger and dangers to others, but I guess I can understand that "disconnect" if it doesn't hit them.
On a bicycle... you're about as vulnerable as you can get. One of these stupid mistakes... and you're road-kill. Literally. So you'd think that being so incredibly vulnerable, you'd be more careful. Yet they're just as wreckless as when they drive.
Which means that someone in a car who cannot prevent the bloody fireworks display on their dash. Now they have to live with THAT. And get sued to oblivion.
Do they do anything to compensate for the extra resistance when moving about? Since training with resistance and then implementing without resistance tends to make a big difference.
It's a long long article so I don't have the time at the moment to read it all. But I've known about this for years, and always thought it was neat. Especially when I realized that they had to do a bunch of stuff to keep you neutrally buoyant at different depths.
But my question is: sure, it helps micro gravity for long-term... and they use it OVER AND OVER AND OVER to practice their repair maneuvers. But isn't that training kind of not perfect since you're practicing to do these movements in an environment where there's resistance? As opposed to space, which will be a near-vacuum so your motions will be a lot quicker and thus risk screwing up your orientation / rotation more.
It's like training with a weight belt on... take it off and you're flying. But, faster movement in space screws up your orientation more.
I've lived with dogs all my life, in varying "degrees" of suburban areas: more urban, to more white-picket-fence. And I've yet to hear of dogs chasing people unless they were strangers disobeying the property line.
As for poop, it's up to the owners to pick it up. Most of the owners I know pick up droppings when in public but let it lie / stay on their lawn. Sure, there are some that will just leave the mistake on the park grass... but that's the human's fault.
My dog likes people and sits on their feet wanting to be petted. Sure, he barks when someone comes into the house but that's kind of their job. He won't bark at people when they're across the street (or even on the street) or on our neighbors property... but he will bark if someone he doesn't know steps onto OUR property.
So unless you're in a place with lots of wild / homeless dogs (I've heard India has a lot) then I think you're exaggerating.
Might not be a "decide to be friendly" as is "just happened to be more docile / friendly than average" and approached out of hunger.
Think: hungry wolf, perhaps weaker / more docile than the rest. By itself, notices the scent of something tastey... roasted boar (or whatever was around). Slowly approaches and knows it has no way in heck of winning against a pack of humans. But it's hungry and wimpers / begs / etc. It snow-balls from there.
Such of these more-docile dogs start doing the same thing, eventually "hook up" and breed docile puppies
Yeh, what the article said is pretty much how I assumed it went down... though it was just assumption and no research.
That the friendly / docile "wolves" willing to beg for food and such would initiate the man/dog companionship. Between finding scraps of food or seeing humans eating that they approached us for food in hunger or whatever.
Considering how vicious wolves can be, especially when hungry or messing with their young, it would be quite dangerous to try to capture / heard / domesticate wolves like cattle OR trying to find recent mother-wolves to train their offspring.
So friendly (or docile) wolves (or whatever proto-dog species there was) coming to us first always made sense to me.
Umm, huh? Is English your native language? Or were you typing on a cellphone? Not trying to be rude or snarky, I'm just assuming one or the other because I don't understand your post.
Firstly, just last year I saw a guy riding his bike (poorly) on a 40 mph street without a helmet... not the side but the middle. As we approached (there was still a car in front of me) he face-planted. The traffic going in both directions had to jam on their brakes. The car in front of me jumped the curb to avoid him.
As far as your larger argument... yeh, idiots in cars do more damage to others. The up-side is with Car vs Car... there's a lot of protection. Obviously it isn't perfect, people tragically die in their cars due to an idiot / drunk driver. It's horrible, and it happens. But with a lot of stuff (side swipes, minor goofs, etc) it just results in damage to a car. With more and more idiot cyclists... yes they're (for the most part) putting just THEIR lives in danger. It can be argued that others, as now cars have to start dodging idiot cyclists and thus risk causing larger accidents, but I get your bit.
However, with my little rant, I was going on about: more idiot cyclists == more people hitting cyclists. Which is bad enough, considering Car vs Bike results in a major one-sided accident, the Car driver now has to deal with A) the sadness of severely injuring / killing a cyclist and B) getting sued to oblivion.
A car drifts into my lane at 40mph chances are we're both fine unless it resulted in a head-on collision with another car. Car cyclist drifts in front of me == roadkill.
And meanwhile you have the overall attitude of "I'm a pedestrian trying to help the environment, watch where I'm going" instead of what SHOULD be "I should be riding carefully, and shouldn't rely on cars defying the laws of physics to avoid killing me"
But in this civil-lawsuit-happy era/country... does that stop the lawsuit?
Obviously, I'd feel horrible if a guy got hurt (or worse) even if there was nothing I could do. And depending how bad everything went, the after-effects would plague me forever. Such as: a guy dying, a guy getting paralyzed, etc. Their suffering, the suffering of their family, etc.
But, considering how easy it is to sue then it also gets dragged out just being found "not at fault" criminally wouldn't get me off the hook civily. I imagine the same thing here: even if the police / DA would agree that I was not at fault for a cyclist doing something stupid... either he (or his family) would still probably try to sue me into oblivion. Meaning lawyers, court-time, head-aches, even if I win.
Not that he's a great use-case in general, but OJ was "found" not guilty. So legally (though not in reality) he was off the hook. That didn't stop the law suits from coming. So I imagine the same thing with accidents.
There's a difference between doing the equivalent of careful jay-walking as you're describing... and flying through the red-light AT SPEED. Hence the "I don't need to stop or slow down"
So, the guy just decides to roll the dice that he can cross the street without stopping / looking while going 15-20 mph and not get hit. OK, maybe on some intersections where you have a really really clear view of the perpendicular road. But I've seen them blast out of a poor visibility intersection "at speed" right in front of me. Had been at that intersection 1-second sooner they'd be road-pizza.
It's clear that he is just lobbying, and that's just not true. But the benefits of people commuting aren't only in helping the atmosphere, but our society, full of obese people that doesn't interact with others and act like retards with their cars.
The only problem with that, is my experience is the that the percentage of idiots in cars is roughly the same as the percentage of idiots on bicycles. Which isn't bad, I guess, if there were only bicycles in the road.
But when you mix bikes and cars together, even with a biking lane, the idiots make things dangerous. A) because they're idiots and B) because SOME cyclists think that since they're not in cars they don't need to follow the rules.
And some of the biggest idiots I've talked to about it, are people that have recently switched "for the environment" Like I've yelled at people that did the below, and their response was simply "But it's good for the environment." Great, will the environment save me from the lawsuit your family will file because I hit you with the car because you swerved in front of me?
Stuff I've seen - Let's speed down the middle of a one-way street, going the wrong way. - Let's ride down the middle of an actual highway... yeh, nothing bad will happen here. (Seriously, saw that and went WTF) - That red light (or stop sign) at the bottom of the hill is only for cars... I don't need to stop or even slow down - Let's make a left turn here while on this 40MpH road without indicating or looking, I'm sure the car behind me can stop in time - Hmm, I think I'll dig in my pocket and look for my cellphone, then start talking on the cellphone, while weaving around like a drunk idiot - Hmm, I'm obviously not a great cyclist... so let me ride carelessly on a 40MpH road, fall down in the middle of the road without a helmet, and nearly cause a bunch of accidents as they try not to drive over my head.
Obviously, there are plenty of careful and educated cyclists out there... especially the ones that take it seriously (helmet, solid bike, proper signals, etc). But the idiots out there are quite bountiful. And of course, hitting one due to their stupidity will obviously result in ME getting hit with criminal and/or civil issues out the whazoo.
Well, Canada... I don't see much a point. They don't have many enemies, and since they're mostly defense-oriented you wouldn't need that many (or at least not Stealth ones). Sure they probably want AN air force but they don't need to go crazy with it.
That being said... just because the US isn't in any conflicts with countries with fighters doesn't mean it won't happen eventually. Sure, right now drones and bombers appear to be all the rage... since we're mostly concentrating on terrorist factions or countries without much of an air force. But if things changed and, say, started facing someone WITH an air force... then we'd probably want a solid one too.
After all, other countries with an air force are consistently upkeeping / upgrading them. Various new Migs and EuroFighters are out there so we need to keep current. But I have my doubts that the F35 and F22 are necessary... something like a Super Hornet seems like a better investment since it's good for AirToGround operations and such.
I'm just saying, the grandparent mentioned Retina. And, as some of my friends who go on and on about Retina and "Samsung doesn't have Retina" I just pointed out that... ok it doesn't have retina but the DPI is close AND it has a bigger screen.
Which is one of the things I liked the most about my S3... the larger screen. It's a lot easier to read and type, while still maintaining a solid resolution
Nobody can fault you for that... the "best" phone is the one that YOU like best... not what anyone else says is the best.
Actually, I applaud your honesty. I had a friend who used to say that about the iPhone 4. It's the best size, perfect size, perfect perfect perfect. And when he learned of the Galaxy S3's upcoming screen size he went on a long tirade: fail, epic fail, lame lame lame... big for big's sake. iPhone 4 is perfect size, anything bigger is just stupid.
THEN when he learned the iPhone 5 was bigger he went on and on about: genius, it's great. THIS is perfect. It's just so obvious, make it slightly bigger. Much better than the 4. He went on and on about how "innovative" Apple was for making a larger screen.
I didn't bother pointing out his hypocrisy... you just can't win against people that are so zealously in love with some product / company.
Well, you KIND of can with Google Voice. Get a Google Voice number and set it up to ring mobile phones 1 through X.
But, you'd still need to have plans on all of your mobile phones with their own number. Which costs money. But at least you'd still have the 1 main number that rings and texts all of your phones.
Exactly. I have big hands, sausage fingers, and honestly don't talk THAT much on the phone. But I do have to check and respond-to emails and texts a bunch. So something like the Galaxy S3 is a perfect size for me since it fits in all of my pockets and lets me type easier. I haven't tried the Notes but I haven't ruled them out.
Meanwhile one of my friends is short in stature, has small hands, and talks a lot. He only switched from a flip-phone to an iPhone because he liked the fewer-moving-parts aspect (no hinge to break, buttons to get stuck, etc)
Without reading the article, the best answer I can come up with is a minor change in hull design to accommodate either a different / better engine or some some sort of safety feature that's required now-a-days.
Agreed, it's "different" and I applaud them for making the attempt. Win7 had the same UI all the way back to Win95, really 3.1 if you ignore the start button.
So they tried something new. Are there some poor decisions in there? Sure. Is it for everyone? No.
But it isn't as evil as some make it out to be. Use it for a week or two and you get used to it... and perhaps even like it.
My only 2 problems with it are A) getting to the power-down button is annoying for new users / visitors and B) when using the Metro apps (or whatever they're called) my GPU usage / fang-speed goes up a little more than I'd like.
You bought the upgrade version... WHICH they weren't that clear about. I made the same mistake when I decided to reformat.
There IS a full version for sale, even as a download, but it's more expensive. With that one, you can simply format a new disk or whatever and not have to jump through hoops. I don't know how much more expensive off the top of my head... my friend bought it for his machine.
But for an upgrade, the price was almost too good to be true a few months ago.
OUR robot technology can't, obviously. A drone or bomb disposal 'bot on the field today isn't going to go HAL on us... the hardware, software, and general architecture doesn't support it.
But we're talking about the future. 20 years from now? 30? 50? At some point, will true AI become possible.
Look how far things have advanced in the last 20 years: we've gone from theoretical discussions to simulated life, facial recognition and pattern matching, etc. Who's to say that another lifetime from now we won't have true AI.
And who's to say that our politicians won't be just as clueless and greedy as they are now and not realize a mistake when it's made. They'd obviously want a true AI there in some manner of speaking... something to make decisions logically and quickly. Whether as just a command module in the General's tent or a driver-module on a tank remains to be seen.
Slashdot Mirror
Tesla is getting the shaft. They're doing some interesting things, and there was a point I could actually afford and want one of their cars... but I live in an area without lots of charging options.
On one hand, that newspaper review was borderline libel. They have the records backing them up and proved the newspaper reporter was a liar... though somehow the writer is trying to defend himself.
But Top Gear... I only watch it every now and then and it's pretty clear that a lot of their "reviews" are a bit sensationalized / comedic / petty. My "favorite" was when they found out the Cadillac CTS-V was actually a decent sports car... so they had to harp that the bell constantly chimed when the door was open. He showed the bit like 5+ times throughout the review and whined that "yes we know the door is open." Yet they failed to mention they left their KEYS in the ignition so the bell/chime was really saying "dude you left your keys in a car with an open door" At least the guy had to say "I can't believe I am going to say this, but this car is actually decent"
There have been others. The guys often have their minds made up about how much they dislike a car/company early on and decide to do comedy bits about this-or-that.
So really, you can't really be surprised that Top Gear decided to mock the Tesla for no reason. It's like if you decided to appear on on one of those old day talk shows like "Jerry Springer" and are surprised they decided to hit you with a "gotcha" or surprise pregnancy... what did you THINK was going to happen?
You think digital watches are pretty neat? That's so amazingly primitive.
I don't mean neat as in "it's so cool how they work" but I think some of the designs of the ones I have are neat. A little different and colorful. Though I still think the primitive automatic / analog watches are "neat" considering how well they function with such relatively old tech. Plus the transparent back lets me see the gears and such move.
I mostly just wear the digitals when either A) I'm going somewhere that I need a cheap watch or B) I know that I'm going to need an easy-to-read stopwatch that day.
Not to mention the weight saved by "armor" for the lack of a better term.
If this thing is going to be constantly bouncing into things... by DESIGN... then it's going to have to be able to take a heavier beating than something that will try to avoid bouncing into things all-together.
I love watches: mostly purely mechanical (automatic) watches. I have a couple of them: ranging from hundreds of dollars to $2,000. I think they're great, and love the mechanical nature. I have a couple of digital ones because I think they're neat, but I don't wear them that often. The digitals are also cheap so when I wear them when I travel or something.
That being said: I can't imagine myself getting this one. Sure, on one hand I guess it's interesting... but no.
As it stands, a watch is pretty much just jewelry now-a-days... clocks are everywhere and most of us already have cellphones to check the time. Now to put an iOS device on your wrist instead of your pocket. No thanks.
I mean, I could see wanting to get the Google Goggles more than this thing and THAT's saying something.
Well, like I said in my post... the drivers are just about as stupid. And more dangerous to others.
My response is to people that A) think more people should drive their bikes (like them) and B) think that magic should protect their stupidity.
My head-scratcher is... in a car, I can understand an idiot making a mistake due to a false sense of safety. They're sitting in the big comfortable armored thing with seatbelts, air bags, armor, and crumple zones. So it might escape an idiot that their doing something stupid. Obviously they're still in danger and a MAJOR dangers to others, but I guess I can understand that "disconnect" if it doesn't hit them. After all: idiots.
On a bicycle... you're about as vulnerable as you can get. One of these stupid mistakes... and you're road-kill. Literally. So you'd think that being so incredibly vulnerable, you'd be more careful. Yet they're just as reckless as when they drive.
It's like walking along a concrete road vs a fragile rope bridge. You'd THINK that the guy would walk careful and be hyper vigilant on the rope bridge. But instead, they're walking-while-texting and not watching their foot-falls.
Which means that someone in a car who cannot prevent the bloody fireworks display on their dash. Now they have to live with THAT. And get sued to oblivion.
Well, like I said in my post... the drivers are just about as stupid.
But my head-scratcher is... in a car, I can understand an idiot making a mistake due to a false sense of safety. They're sitting in the big comfortable armored thing with seatbelts, air bags, armor, and crumple zones. So it might escape an idiot that their doing something stupid. Obviously they're still in danger and dangers to others, but I guess I can understand that "disconnect" if it doesn't hit them.
On a bicycle... you're about as vulnerable as you can get. One of these stupid mistakes... and you're road-kill. Literally. So you'd think that being so incredibly vulnerable, you'd be more careful. Yet they're just as wreckless as when they drive.
Which means that someone in a car who cannot prevent the bloody fireworks display on their dash. Now they have to live with THAT. And get sued to oblivion.
Do they do anything to compensate for the extra resistance when moving about? Since training with resistance and then implementing without resistance tends to make a big difference.
It's a long long article so I don't have the time at the moment to read it all. But I've known about this for years, and always thought it was neat. Especially when I realized that they had to do a bunch of stuff to keep you neutrally buoyant at different depths.
But my question is: sure, it helps micro gravity for long-term... and they use it OVER AND OVER AND OVER to practice their repair maneuvers. But isn't that training kind of not perfect since you're practicing to do these movements in an environment where there's resistance? As opposed to space, which will be a near-vacuum so your motions will be a lot quicker and thus risk screwing up your orientation / rotation more.
It's like training with a weight belt on... take it off and you're flying. But, faster movement in space screws up your orientation more.
Geez, where the heck are YOU from?
I've lived with dogs all my life, in varying "degrees" of suburban areas: more urban, to more white-picket-fence. And I've yet to hear of dogs chasing people unless they were strangers disobeying the property line.
As for poop, it's up to the owners to pick it up. Most of the owners I know pick up droppings when in public but let it lie / stay on their lawn. Sure, there are some that will just leave the mistake on the park grass... but that's the human's fault.
My dog likes people and sits on their feet wanting to be petted. Sure, he barks when someone comes into the house but that's kind of their job. He won't bark at people when they're across the street (or even on the street) or on our neighbors property... but he will bark if someone he doesn't know steps onto OUR property.
So unless you're in a place with lots of wild / homeless dogs (I've heard India has a lot) then I think you're exaggerating.
Might not be a "decide to be friendly" as is "just happened to be more docile / friendly than average" and approached out of hunger.
Think: hungry wolf, perhaps weaker / more docile than the rest. By itself, notices the scent of something tastey... roasted boar (or whatever was around). Slowly approaches and knows it has no way in heck of winning against a pack of humans. But it's hungry and wimpers / begs / etc. It snow-balls from there.
Such of these more-docile dogs start doing the same thing, eventually "hook up" and breed docile puppies
Yeh, what the article said is pretty much how I assumed it went down... though it was just assumption and no research.
That the friendly / docile "wolves" willing to beg for food and such would initiate the man/dog companionship. Between finding scraps of food or seeing humans eating that they approached us for food in hunger or whatever.
Considering how vicious wolves can be, especially when hungry or messing with their young, it would be quite dangerous to try to capture / heard / domesticate wolves like cattle OR trying to find recent mother-wolves to train their offspring.
So friendly (or docile) wolves (or whatever proto-dog species there was) coming to us first always made sense to me.
Umm, huh? Is English your native language? Or were you typing on a cellphone?
Not trying to be rude or snarky, I'm just assuming one or the other because I don't understand your post.
Firstly, just last year I saw a guy riding his bike (poorly) on a 40 mph street without a helmet... not the side but the middle. As we approached (there was still a car in front of me) he face-planted. The traffic going in both directions had to jam on their brakes. The car in front of me jumped the curb to avoid him.
As far as your larger argument... yeh, idiots in cars do more damage to others. The up-side is with Car vs Car... there's a lot of protection. Obviously it isn't perfect, people tragically die in their cars due to an idiot / drunk driver. It's horrible, and it happens. But with a lot of stuff (side swipes, minor goofs, etc) it just results in damage to a car. With more and more idiot cyclists... yes they're (for the most part) putting just THEIR lives in danger. It can be argued that others, as now cars have to start dodging idiot cyclists and thus risk causing larger accidents, but I get your bit.
However, with my little rant, I was going on about: more idiot cyclists == more people hitting cyclists. Which is bad enough, considering Car vs Bike results in a major one-sided accident, the Car driver now has to deal with A) the sadness of severely injuring / killing a cyclist and B) getting sued to oblivion.
A car drifts into my lane at 40mph chances are we're both fine unless it resulted in a head-on collision with another car. Car cyclist drifts in front of me == roadkill.
And meanwhile you have the overall attitude of "I'm a pedestrian trying to help the environment, watch where I'm going" instead of what SHOULD be "I should be riding carefully, and shouldn't rely on cars defying the laws of physics to avoid killing me"
But in this civil-lawsuit-happy era/country... does that stop the lawsuit?
Obviously, I'd feel horrible if a guy got hurt (or worse) even if there was nothing I could do. And depending how bad everything went, the after-effects would plague me forever. Such as: a guy dying, a guy getting paralyzed, etc. Their suffering, the suffering of their family, etc.
But, considering how easy it is to sue then it also gets dragged out just being found "not at fault" criminally wouldn't get me off the hook civily. I imagine the same thing here: even if the police / DA would agree that I was not at fault for a cyclist doing something stupid... either he (or his family) would still probably try to sue me into oblivion. Meaning lawyers, court-time, head-aches, even if I win.
Not that he's a great use-case in general, but OJ was "found" not guilty. So legally (though not in reality) he was off the hook. That didn't stop the law suits from coming. So I imagine the same thing with accidents.
There's a difference between doing the equivalent of careful jay-walking as you're describing... and flying through the red-light AT SPEED. Hence the "I don't need to stop or slow down"
So, the guy just decides to roll the dice that he can cross the street without stopping / looking while going 15-20 mph and not get hit. OK, maybe on some intersections where you have a really really clear view of the perpendicular road. But I've seen them blast out of a poor visibility intersection "at speed" right in front of me. Had been at that intersection 1-second sooner they'd be road-pizza.
It's clear that he is just lobbying, and that's just not true. But the benefits of people commuting aren't only in helping the atmosphere, but our society, full of obese people that doesn't interact with others and act like retards with their cars.
The only problem with that, is my experience is the that the percentage of idiots in cars is roughly the same as the percentage of idiots on bicycles. Which isn't bad, I guess, if there were only bicycles in the road.
But when you mix bikes and cars together, even with a biking lane, the idiots make things dangerous. A) because they're idiots and B) because SOME cyclists think that since they're not in cars they don't need to follow the rules.
And some of the biggest idiots I've talked to about it, are people that have recently switched "for the environment" Like I've yelled at people that did the below, and their response was simply "But it's good for the environment." Great, will the environment save me from the lawsuit your family will file because I hit you with the car because you swerved in front of me?
Stuff I've seen
- Let's speed down the middle of a one-way street, going the wrong way.
- Let's ride down the middle of an actual highway... yeh, nothing bad will happen here. (Seriously, saw that and went WTF)
- That red light (or stop sign) at the bottom of the hill is only for cars... I don't need to stop or even slow down
- Let's make a left turn here while on this 40MpH road without indicating or looking, I'm sure the car behind me can stop in time
- Hmm, I think I'll dig in my pocket and look for my cellphone, then start talking on the cellphone, while weaving around like a drunk idiot
- Hmm, I'm obviously not a great cyclist... so let me ride carelessly on a 40MpH road, fall down in the middle of the road without a helmet, and nearly cause a bunch of accidents as they try not to drive over my head.
Obviously, there are plenty of careful and educated cyclists out there... especially the ones that take it seriously (helmet, solid bike, proper signals, etc). But the idiots out there are quite bountiful. And of course, hitting one due to their stupidity will obviously result in ME getting hit with criminal and/or civil issues out the whazoo.
Well, Canada... I don't see much a point. They don't have many enemies, and since they're mostly defense-oriented you wouldn't need that many (or at least not Stealth ones). Sure they probably want AN air force but they don't need to go crazy with it.
That being said... just because the US isn't in any conflicts with countries with fighters doesn't mean it won't happen eventually. Sure, right now drones and bombers appear to be all the rage... since we're mostly concentrating on terrorist factions or countries without much of an air force. But if things changed and, say, started facing someone WITH an air force... then we'd probably want a solid one too.
After all, other countries with an air force are consistently upkeeping / upgrading them. Various new Migs and EuroFighters are out there so we need to keep current. But I have my doubts that the F35 and F22 are necessary... something like a Super Hornet seems like a better investment since it's good for AirToGround operations and such.
Well, duh and or hello
I'm just saying, the grandparent mentioned Retina. And, as some of my friends who go on and on about Retina and "Samsung doesn't have Retina" I just pointed out that... ok it doesn't have retina but the DPI is close AND it has a bigger screen.
Which is one of the things I liked the most about my S3... the larger screen. It's a lot easier to read and type, while still maintaining a solid resolution
Honestly, Retina isn't THAT huge of a deal. The Samsung Galaxy S3 has a larger screen WHILE at the same time keeping the dpi ALMOST at Retina's level.
Nobody can fault you for that... the "best" phone is the one that YOU like best... not what anyone else says is the best.
Actually, I applaud your honesty. I had a friend who used to say that about the iPhone 4. It's the best size, perfect size, perfect perfect perfect. And when he learned of the Galaxy S3's upcoming screen size he went on a long tirade: fail, epic fail, lame lame lame... big for big's sake. iPhone 4 is perfect size, anything bigger is just stupid.
THEN when he learned the iPhone 5 was bigger he went on and on about: genius, it's great. THIS is perfect. It's just so obvious, make it slightly bigger. Much better than the 4. He went on and on about how "innovative" Apple was for making a larger screen.
I didn't bother pointing out his hypocrisy... you just can't win against people that are so zealously in love with some product / company.
Well, you KIND of can with Google Voice. Get a Google Voice number and set it up to ring mobile phones 1 through X.
But, you'd still need to have plans on all of your mobile phones with their own number. Which costs money. But at least you'd still have the 1 main number that rings and texts all of your phones.
Exactly. I have big hands, sausage fingers, and honestly don't talk THAT much on the phone. But I do have to check and respond-to emails and texts a bunch. So something like the Galaxy S3 is a perfect size for me since it fits in all of my pockets and lets me type easier. I haven't tried the Notes but I haven't ruled them out.
Meanwhile one of my friends is short in stature, has small hands, and talks a lot. He only switched from a flip-phone to an iPhone because he liked the fewer-moving-parts aspect (no hinge to break, buttons to get stuck, etc)
Different people == different priorities.
Without reading the article, the best answer I can come up with is a minor change in hull design to accommodate either a different / better engine or some some sort of safety feature that's required now-a-days.
But I don't care enough to read the whole thing,
Agreed, it's "different" and I applaud them for making the attempt. Win7 had the same UI all the way back to Win95, really 3.1 if you ignore the start button.
So they tried something new. Are there some poor decisions in there? Sure. Is it for everyone? No.
But it isn't as evil as some make it out to be. Use it for a week or two and you get used to it... and perhaps even like it.
My only 2 problems with it are A) getting to the power-down button is annoying for new users / visitors and B) when using the Metro apps (or whatever they're called) my GPU usage / fang-speed goes up a little more than I'd like.
You bought the upgrade version... WHICH they weren't that clear about. I made the same mistake when I decided to reformat.
There IS a full version for sale, even as a download, but it's more expensive. With that one, you can simply format a new disk or whatever and not have to jump through hoops. I don't know how much more expensive off the top of my head... my friend bought it for his machine.
But for an upgrade, the price was almost too good to be true a few months ago.
OUR robot technology can't, obviously. A drone or bomb disposal 'bot on the field today isn't going to go HAL on us... the hardware, software, and general architecture doesn't support it.
But we're talking about the future. 20 years from now? 30? 50? At some point, will true AI become possible.
Look how far things have advanced in the last 20 years: we've gone from theoretical discussions to simulated life, facial recognition and pattern matching, etc. Who's to say that another lifetime from now we won't have true AI.
And who's to say that our politicians won't be just as clueless and greedy as they are now and not realize a mistake when it's made. They'd obviously want a true AI there in some manner of speaking... something to make decisions logically and quickly. Whether as just a command module in the General's tent or a driver-module on a tank remains to be seen.