The climate at Slashdot became so ill and sickening.
The big companies shows so much disregards to privacy that it is sickening. Trolling here with such stupid obvious question here is as bad.
Do you really need to ask if ppl willfully agree with such invasion of their privacy, their own body, tainting, violating their own self? Can't you figure how wrong this is of a privacy and individual integrity violation it is to implant an ID chip?
My grand-parents fought for their liberty, their rights against the Nazis who among other so terrible things they did, forced tattoo ID.
And now we have a young generation of idiots and mentally ill individuals asking if we are ok to be inserted with an ID microchip under our skin?
Tiny fragments of plastics are not going to be caught by such floating device. The big chunks of plastic visible at the surface are only a fraction of the amount of plastic in the ocean. The tiny bits of plastic are ingested by sea life and pollute all the food chain. I know no solution for this other than stop using oil based plastics as disposable material entirely. But this device is not going to solve anything. At best it will hides the issue if it can remove the large and visible plastic chunks.
"mobile multifunction" is a really poor wording anyway ; nobody would and will use that.
It is not worse than "voiture automobile" (car) that was shortened to "voiture" once the other types of cars became marginal.
I have no doubt that "mobile multifunction" will just be called "mobile" as it has been the case since long enough to be an adopted and understood short-name. Also because as non-smart mobile phones or dumb phones are becoming marginals, maybe we will just choose a more generic short-name like "téléphone" (phone).
How many disposable single-use containers made of oil sourced plastic are still produced and sold around the world?
This is such an horrible waste of resources.
Why can't I come to the supermarket with my containers to refill with whatever I need, like liquid soap?
I buy my dish washing soap by 5 litters high concentration Teepol for €8.5 and have 13 refills at 50% water dilution for a 750 milliliters Paic bottle I bought 10 years ago for €2.5. An average consumer person would have bought and trashed 50 plastic bottles once empty by now. I went 10 years with only 2 × 5 litters soap containers. And I save money at that.
Kids buy fluff candy in strong transparent polyethylene boxes that go to trash. The plastic box weights more than the fluff it contains, and it is made of fossil oil.
Programming is:
writing recipes to be processed by fast but absolutely clueless cooks,
operating in a strictly defined and ordered kitchen,
having a known set of cookware and proper ingredients on hand.
A Program is:
a fine-grained description, identification, classification of each ingredient,
instructions for how and when to get each ingredient,
a layout of each steps and sub-steps leading to the final meal product,
a description of what is a valid final meal product.
All this written with a narrow but exact vocabulary.
These twaddles are as old as ISPs.
I just wonder why it took so long.
Most ISPs are advertising the RAW carrier bit-rate rather than the actual net data bit-rate.
DSL Provider show you ATM bit-rate. You can roughly cut 10-12% for the real BPS. And it still represents the raw data rate between your modem and the DSLAM. Even when you get optimal link there, the local collect loop is either deliberately throttled or saturated. By the time your data can travel to or from outside your ISPs internal network, it is already diminished.
Getting VDSL2 here advertised as up-to 100up/30down MBPs.
Lines has 0 loss, 0 CRC, and talks at 90/25 MBs. Even if it is encapsulated in an ATM transmission with 10% loss. That make it still like 80 Down / 25 Up.
In reality ISP is throttling it to 25-30 Down 20 Up because their fiber to the central has not enough capacity in my area.
Sheepples here don't care as long as they can go to Facebook to post their pathetic lolcats.
Good hope some advertising regulators pay attention. Was about time they did.
You will have a billion files called Hamlet by Shakespear but only one containing a legitimate version of Hamlet
If you want the legitimate Hamlet by Shakespeare, then define rules of what makes it a legitimate version.
You will probably need a simple set of point checks, some more complexes (requiring other set of rules) like writing style if you want to include non exact copies into your valid results set.
You can have a top down approach of solutions (result sets), instead of an incremental approach.
Lets take a simpler problem as an example:
You can algorithmically compute the surface of a random shape pool, by taking precise measurements scales, then transform in sub-surfaces equations, then resolve the surface algebraically.
On a standard computer, you have few alternative algorithms and each one of it will take some time to compute.
You can take the statistical route (suitable for quantum computing/infinite speed result set exploration):
Probe points within a known surface (say the garden where the pool is). Then factor how many probes were outside or inside the pool.
After some time, you get a ratio of pool surface = %garden surface.
With sequential computing, your statistical result gets more precise over time. But is never exact.
With Quantum computing: You instantaneously probe the whole surface and get an exact result immediately for pool surface = %garden surface. (Top-down approach)
Sequential programming: You determine and compute complex surface algebra from bottom-up for an hopefully exact result.
Infinite speed/quantum programming: You define a simple rule of inside or outside surface probe and you get the exact result in no time.
WIth an infinitely fast computer you don't program steps or equations rules to compute the result.
Instead, you infinitely fast generate random result sets and program simple broad rules for what is an acceptable result match.
Your CPU has infinite branch prediction, so it explores all paths instantly.
I really think the poster meant quantum computer programming language. Because Quantum computers are somehow infinitely fast because they can explore all results simultaneously.
I think you misunderstand what I'm trying to say and focused on a facile reading of the words.
I'm saying that it's unrealistic to expect all my employees to be at the same level of excellence of skill and competence.
Therefore it makes sense to set up my environment so that I don't rely upon that unrealistic expectation and can still get good performance out of my team even if they're not all perfect.
Please think a little deeper about what people have to say.
Dude, I second you entirely on this.
Please re-read what I said in light of this.
Expectations have to be realistic as much for a private company or for the army. Fact is, it is easier for private companies to be very selective with high expectations in a competitive environment as developers and software engineering. Every company wants the best candidate. Maybe they will get the pearl pristine one treasure. But most likely they will get someone more average in capabilities. And you are absolutely right, that managers have to set the bar at reality to begin with.
My point was, that Army may not have as much choice and have to invest much more in education. Also because the kind of education army needs, is not taught in schools or universities. And I am pretty sure an army has more realistic expectations than any coding shop riding technology hypes and expecting junior developers to have unrealistic experience and abilities levels.
And the army would like all their soldiers to be Delta SEAL black ops operator bad mother fuckers too.
Meanwhile, in the real world, we recognize that not everyone is a gold medalist and we try to work with the people and resources and money that we actually have available.
The army is not cost competitive and its funds are all about political reasons.
A private company has to compete on price, and market shares and is funded by investors confidence into profitability.
The army needs ppls that are: Physically capable, blindly obey rules and hierarchy, accept to give-up their freedom and can adapt predictably uncomfortable and high risk missions. They do provide education for most of it, and the education process is selective enough to have the worst candidates to give-up and quit spontaneously.
Private companies rarely invest in education or only on their specific tools. They select candidates from a worldwide pool, performs background and interviews, expect their disposable employees/contractors to know their job enough to not invest in education. And hope they got the right person for the job and for the amount they are willing to engage.
There are an estimated 150,000 car fires in the US every year. I don't think either of us has the data available to make an apples to apples comparison but I very much doubt that battery powered cars will prove to be meaningfully more hazardous that gasoline powered ones.
Gasoline does not have to be in a combustion chamber to ignite. A hot manifold with a leaking fuel line is more than enough to set a car on fire.
My point: Fuel cell batteries where; One could refill a tank of reactant and having the reactor part in a distinct area, would not need having the chemical reaction so close to the stored energy (thin layers in lithium batteries).
About burning cars:
If ppls with electric cars were skipping maintenance and having so much mishandling than those burning IC engine cars endured. I think consequences would be way more dramatic. Be sure as soon as Electric Cars becomes affordable to the mass, there will be enough fools to cross the boundaries of safety.
> Gasoline is quite dangerous under the right conditions and has a substantially higher energy density and specific energy than any lithium based batteries we currently can make. Although for that matter so does a block of wood or animal fat...
What makes a battery more hazardous than fuel, is having the reaction occurs at the same location as the stored energy. With fuel, combustion chambers are very distinct and distant from storage tanks.
For the non specialist, this sounds like a broad simplification. How did the Copilot not notice early when fire was emergent and controllable? How can a pair of devices a tablet and an phone exposed on a dashboard a few inches at reach from a the copilot down a whole plane in a few minutes?
I've seen Air Crash episodes about Lithium batteries starting a massive fire in a cargo bay just under the electronic compartment of a 747. But here the situation looks much more genuine. Is it sensationalism at work again?
You can set on fire a steel sanding sponge mesh with a lighter or a match.
The reasons you can not set a block of steel on fire under normal conditions (unless plunged into liquid oxygen), is because of density, ambient oxygen atoms at 1 atmosphere can not reach iron atoms fast enough to sustain enough heat for the reaction to propagate and to exhale enough iron particles. Your steel block will consume anyway slowly burn over years into rust. And while remaining an exothermic reaction, temperature elevation is unnoticeable without very precise measure instruments.
It is the very same reason why you can not set a block of pure carbon (diamond) on fire with a lighter or a match.
Or because Cannonical need a wider market for their own cloud products https://www.ubuntu.com/cloud/p... Defeating competitors may be their real ultimate goal.
Even if it needs government regulations to enforce it; All on-line services with a subscription of any kind, shall be required by Law, to provide an equally easy mean of terminating one's subscription, with requirement to drop everything but legal accounting. It should also be made mandatory, to provide full access to all raw data and aggregations from an account. All data collected by on-line services about Me, shall be viewable by Me and, I shall be allowed to revoke access to it by said service at any-time.
I realize it's impossible to have a rational discussion about animal research, but every scientist I know makes a serious effort to use the simplest species possible and to minimize its discomfort. For example, the Courtine group developed their technology in rodent models before even trying it in primates. Even "chronic" animal studies are brief relative to the human lifespan, and the time that an animal model has to live with the consequences of an experiment gone bad are much shorter than a human volunteer.
In best case these monkeys will be, or are already euthanasied. In worst case they will be maintained a miserable life of a paralyzed animal and recycled for other unrelated testing to some other lab facility for a discount.
The only rational question is weather there is really no other alternatives. Since we discuss this after the facts, I only hope those involved into these experiments and taking care of the lab monkeys had enough ethics to keep the rational question in mind with no definitive answer.
Publishing one's mailbox content, it is no surprise to find junk.
Thus I am not surprised a political figure in need for more funding is receiving frivolous solicitations from a person with questionable mental health. And guess what, when a public political figure has to smile and be kind with all ppl, even those that are disturbingly ill. This is even more important if your are in need for funding.
Slashdot Mirror
Sierra supercomputer that monitors America's nuclear stockpile
At 2:14 August 29, 2017 Sierra became self-aware and was renamed Skynet.
Both are sickening.
The climate at Slashdot became so ill and sickening.
The big companies shows so much disregards to privacy that it is sickening.
Trolling here with such stupid obvious question here is as bad.
Do you really need to ask if ppl willfully agree with such invasion of their privacy, their own body, tainting, violating their own self?
Can't you figure how wrong this is of a privacy and individual integrity violation it is to implant an ID chip?
My grand-parents fought for their liberty, their rights against the Nazis who among other so terrible things they did, forced tattoo ID.
And now we have a young generation of idiots and mentally ill individuals asking if we are ok to be inserted with an ID microchip under our skin?
Tiny fragments of plastics are not going to be caught by such floating device.
The big chunks of plastic visible at the surface are only a fraction of the amount of plastic in the ocean.
The tiny bits of plastic are ingested by sea life and pollute all the food chain.
I know no solution for this other than stop using oil based plastics as disposable material entirely. But this device is not going to solve anything. At best it will hides the issue if it can remove the large and visible plastic chunks.
???
written by paranoiacs.
Sorry Honey, I left our home keys into the glove box!
"mobile multifunction" is a really poor wording anyway ; nobody would and will use that.
It is not worse than "voiture automobile" (car) that was shortened to "voiture" once the other types of cars became marginal.
I have no doubt that "mobile multifunction" will just be called "mobile" as it has been the case since long enough to be an adopted and understood short-name. Also because as non-smart mobile phones or dumb phones are becoming marginals, maybe we will just choose a more generic short-name like "téléphone" (phone).
Plastic bags are already prohibited.
How many disposable single-use containers made of oil sourced plastic are still produced and sold around the world?
This is such an horrible waste of resources.
Why can't I come to the supermarket with my containers to refill with whatever I need, like liquid soap?
I buy my dish washing soap by 5 litters high concentration Teepol for €8.5 and have 13 refills at 50% water dilution for a 750 milliliters Paic bottle I bought 10 years ago for €2.5. An average consumer person would have bought and trashed 50 plastic bottles once empty by now. I went 10 years with only 2 × 5 litters soap containers. And I save money at that.
Kids buy fluff candy in strong transparent polyethylene boxes that go to trash. The plastic box weights more than the fluff it contains, and it is made of fossil oil.
All this should have been prohibited decades ago.
All this written with a narrow but exact vocabulary.
These twaddles are as old as ISPs. I just wonder why it took so long. Most ISPs are advertising the RAW carrier bit-rate rather than the actual net data bit-rate. DSL Provider show you ATM bit-rate. You can roughly cut 10-12% for the real BPS. And it still represents the raw data rate between your modem and the DSLAM. Even when you get optimal link there, the local collect loop is either deliberately throttled or saturated. By the time your data can travel to or from outside your ISPs internal network, it is already diminished. Getting VDSL2 here advertised as up-to 100up/30down MBPs. Lines has 0 loss, 0 CRC, and talks at 90/25 MBs. Even if it is encapsulated in an ATM transmission with 10% loss. That make it still like 80 Down / 25 Up. In reality ISP is throttling it to 25-30 Down 20 Up because their fiber to the central has not enough capacity in my area. Sheepples here don't care as long as they can go to Facebook to post their pathetic lolcats. Good hope some advertising regulators pay attention. Was about time they did.
Use Ada, Ada is the most awesome language for anything, including embedded and certified code.
How would searching them will be easy?
You will have a billion files called Hamlet by Shakespear but only one containing a legitimate version of Hamlet
If you want the legitimate Hamlet by Shakespeare, then define rules of what makes it a legitimate version.
You will probably need a simple set of point checks, some more complexes (requiring other set of rules) like writing style if you want to include non exact copies into your valid results set.
You can have a top down approach of solutions (result sets), instead of an incremental approach.
Lets take a simpler problem as an example:
You can algorithmically compute the surface of a random shape pool, by taking precise measurements scales, then transform in sub-surfaces equations, then resolve the surface algebraically.
On a standard computer, you have few alternative algorithms and each one of it will take some time to compute.
You can take the statistical route (suitable for quantum computing/infinite speed result set exploration): Probe points within a known surface (say the garden where the pool is). Then factor how many probes were outside or inside the pool. After some time, you get a ratio of pool surface = %garden surface.
With sequential computing, your statistical result gets more precise over time. But is never exact.
With Quantum computing: You instantaneously probe the whole surface and get an exact result immediately for pool surface = %garden surface. (Top-down approach)
Sequential programming: You determine and compute complex surface algebra from bottom-up for an hopefully exact result.
Infinite speed/quantum programming: You define a simple rule of inside or outside surface probe and you get the exact result in no time.
WIth an infinitely fast computer you don't program steps or equations rules to compute the result. Instead, you infinitely fast generate random result sets and program simple broad rules for what is an acceptable result match. Your CPU has infinite branch prediction, so it explores all paths instantly. I really think the poster meant quantum computer programming language. Because Quantum computers are somehow infinitely fast because they can explore all results simultaneously.
I think you misunderstand what I'm trying to say and focused on a facile reading of the words. I'm saying that it's unrealistic to expect all my employees to be at the same level of excellence of skill and competence. Therefore it makes sense to set up my environment so that I don't rely upon that unrealistic expectation and can still get good performance out of my team even if they're not all perfect. Please think a little deeper about what people have to say.
Dude, I second you entirely on this. Please re-read what I said in light of this. Expectations have to be realistic as much for a private company or for the army. Fact is, it is easier for private companies to be very selective with high expectations in a competitive environment as developers and software engineering. Every company wants the best candidate. Maybe they will get the pearl pristine one treasure. But most likely they will get someone more average in capabilities. And you are absolutely right, that managers have to set the bar at reality to begin with. My point was, that Army may not have as much choice and have to invest much more in education. Also because the kind of education army needs, is not taught in schools or universities. And I am pretty sure an army has more realistic expectations than any coding shop riding technology hypes and expecting junior developers to have unrealistic experience and abilities levels.
And the army would like all their soldiers to be Delta SEAL black ops operator bad mother fuckers too. Meanwhile, in the real world, we recognize that not everyone is a gold medalist and we try to work with the people and resources and money that we actually have available.
The army is not cost competitive and its funds are all about political reasons. A private company has to compete on price, and market shares and is funded by investors confidence into profitability.
The army needs ppls that are: Physically capable, blindly obey rules and hierarchy, accept to give-up their freedom and can adapt predictably uncomfortable and high risk missions. They do provide education for most of it, and the education process is selective enough to have the worst candidates to give-up and quit spontaneously.
Private companies rarely invest in education or only on their specific tools. They select candidates from a worldwide pool, performs background and interviews, expect their disposable employees/contractors to know their job enough to not invest in education. And hope they got the right person for the job and for the amount they are willing to engage.
Different purposes, different rules.
There are an estimated 150,000 car fires in the US every year. I don't think either of us has the data available to make an apples to apples comparison but I very much doubt that battery powered cars will prove to be meaningfully more hazardous that gasoline powered ones.
Gasoline does not have to be in a combustion chamber to ignite. A hot manifold with a leaking fuel line is more than enough to set a car on fire.
My point: Fuel cell batteries where; One could refill a tank of reactant and having the reactor part in a distinct area, would not need having the chemical reaction so close to the stored energy (thin layers in lithium batteries). About burning cars: If ppls with electric cars were skipping maintenance and having so much mishandling than those burning IC engine cars endured. I think consequences would be way more dramatic. Be sure as soon as Electric Cars becomes affordable to the mass, there will be enough fools to cross the boundaries of safety.
> Gasoline is quite dangerous under the right conditions and has a substantially higher energy density and specific energy than any lithium based batteries we currently can make. Although for that matter so does a block of wood or animal fat...
What makes a battery more hazardous than fuel, is having the reaction occurs at the same location as the stored energy.
With fuel, combustion chambers are very distinct and distant from storage tanks.
For the non specialist, this sounds like a broad simplification.
How did the Copilot not notice early when fire was emergent and controllable?
How can a pair of devices a tablet and an phone exposed on a dashboard a few inches at reach from a the copilot down a whole plane in a few minutes?
I've seen Air Crash episodes about Lithium batteries starting a massive fire in a cargo bay just under the electronic compartment of a 747. But here the situation looks much more genuine. Is it sensationalism at work again?
You can set on fire a steel sanding sponge mesh with a lighter or a match.
The reasons you can not set a block of steel on fire under normal conditions (unless plunged into liquid oxygen), is because of density, ambient oxygen atoms at 1 atmosphere can not reach iron atoms fast enough to sustain enough heat for the reaction to propagate and to exhale enough iron particles. Your steel block will consume anyway slowly burn over years into rust. And while remaining an exothermic reaction, temperature elevation is unnoticeable without very precise measure instruments.
It is the very same reason why you can not set a block of pure carbon (diamond) on fire with a lighter or a match.
Their government logged and spied-on browsing history to be filled with unfortunate AI driven preload, when the algorithm land them into troubles.
Or because Cannonical need a wider market for their own cloud products https://www.ubuntu.com/cloud/p...
Defeating competitors may be their real ultimate goal.
Lets face it. I doubt even a test lab Manager can earn $1.5M within 10 years of salary out there.
So 10 Years in prison can be a very bad unpleasant occupation but, for $1.5M it pays decently.
Even if it needs government regulations to enforce it;
All on-line services with a subscription of any kind,
shall be required by Law, to provide an equally easy mean of terminating one's subscription,
with requirement to drop everything but legal accounting.
It should also be made mandatory, to provide full access to all raw data and aggregations from an account.
All data collected by on-line services about Me, shall be viewable by Me and, I shall be allowed to revoke access to it by said service at any-time.
I realize it's impossible to have a rational discussion about animal research, but every scientist I know makes a serious effort to use the simplest species possible and to minimize its discomfort. For example, the Courtine group developed their technology in rodent models before even trying it in primates. Even "chronic" animal studies are brief relative to the human lifespan, and the time that an animal model has to live with the consequences of an experiment gone bad are much shorter than a human volunteer.
In best case these monkeys will be, or are already euthanasied.
In worst case they will be maintained a miserable life of a paralyzed animal and recycled for other unrelated testing to some other lab facility for a discount.
The only rational question is weather there is really no other alternatives.
Since we discuss this after the facts, I only hope those involved into these experiments and taking care of the lab monkeys had enough ethics to keep the rational question in mind with no definitive answer.
Publishing one's mailbox content, it is no surprise to find junk.
Thus I am not surprised a political figure in need for more funding is receiving frivolous solicitations from a person with questionable mental health. And guess what, when a public political figure has to smile and be kind with all ppl, even those that are disturbingly ill. This is even more important if your are in need for funding.