We have had to move offshore, with its inherent risks, and switch to tar sands and oil shale, which are lower grade and harder to process. Plus, we have moved a lot of power generation from burning oil to natural gas that we are getting from fracking.
So, oil "as we knew it" ended. We have just found ways of compensating. However, we have always known about those sources and known that, at a certain price, they became viable. Now, we are already into those reserves and haven't found anything new for when those run out.
Except, at one point in time, saying "Black people and white people should have the right to marry each other." could incite violence. People could, and did, get hurt for saying those things; so should we have shut those speeches, rallies, protests, and marches down because someone could get hurt?
The hard part about freedom is fighting for the other person's right to say things that you think are sick and twisted. No one fights because they think $DEITY is with the other side - everyone thinks they are "in the right". The Constitution has freedom of speech FIRST for a reason.
Of course, if anything goes beyond "speech" - violence, oppression, etc. then it is time to drop the hammer. However, if it remains speech, then it should be protected.
P.S. - It is legal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It is the desire to incite violence or mayhem that makes it illegal. (Ex: There could be a real fire.)
Vampires wouldn't show up on camera. So, maybe the reason we don't see big foot is a vampire, feeling bad about feeding on humans, fed on big foot and turned him into a vampire.
If you lose a few bits of encrypted data you're left with garbage.
Not true. There are methods where you will lose a few blocks of data, but then it will get back on track. For an example of this, look up cipher block chaining.
Of course, having software that won't panic and crash when it hits an error is an entirely different problem.
One problem with a global business is WHEN do you test the failover?
Early Sunday morning in Atlanta? Well, it's the middle of the day on Monday in Japan, Australia, and a lot of other countries. Of course, because of business travelers, Monday is probably one of the worst days of the week for an airline to run a test - despite it being Sunday somewhere else.
Sometimes, there is no good solution, and you end up continuing with what you have because anything else is an even worse idea.
My tax rate is less than 10% (for federal income tax), under 20% for all taxes (federal, including SS/medicare, state and local). Taxes are very regressive.
If you neglect the capital cost, it's $0.66 AUD per 1000 L of water.
However, you can't neglect the capital cost. Plants need to be built, maintained and replaced. They may go lower (per unit of water) the longer the plant runs, but they can't be neglected.
Are you talking about rough play, sports or actually fighting.
Football (American) has been under heavy criticism due to the risk of brain injuries. However, there are schools that have banned tag for a variety of reasons.
We don't have much of a hunting culture here unless you're a toff and even then it's with dogs, not guns.
The US used to. In fact, in many areas, it's actually necessary to keep animal populations in check. Without hunting, the animals would overpopulate and starve. It is well managed by the various DNR agencies within those states. Students used to be able to bring their shotguns and hunting rifles to school since they would go hunting after school and before dinner. Now it just means they are expelled - assuming they aren't charged with a crime as well. Also, most states require you to pass a firearms safety class before you can get a hunting permit, so the students have to know what they are doing.
The items listed in the summary aren't unnecessary - they are good practices. Readability, ease of maintenance, debugging and error-handling are all good things, and SHOULD be included - even if they aren't needed in a specific instance.
Car analogy: Most cars never need to have airbags, but we put them in because they are a good idea. The same should go for the listed code constructs - they should be there for the times it does matter.
Imagine what you would do if basic survival money wasn't a factor? What would you create? Where would you go? It might take a generation or two to take off the training wheels, but I suspect a great deal of wonderfully creative things coming into existence. Obviously not everyone is creative, but that percentage is actually low.
Well, I think that most people would waste their days having sex, drinking, doing drugs, watching TV, watching cat videos, or playing video games. Even if we say it fixes itself in 1-2 generations, that means we have to survive 20-40 years of transition before things straighten out. I'm sure that will go smoothly, with no lasting damage being done to our society or infrastructure from decades of neglect.
People don't want to just be comfortable - they want luxuries. Compare a house built 50 or 60 years ago with new construction. In my parent's house, the master bedroom was barely large enough for a full size bed, and everyone shared a bathroom. Now, in new construction, the master bedroom fits a king bed easily, and there is a full bathroom, with tub and shower attached to it. Plus, walk-in closets used to be found mostly on TV shows featuring wealthy characters. Now, almost every house has more than one of them. Do people really need giant bedrooms, giant beds, and marble showers to be "comfortable"? Do you need a giant kitchen with granite countertops and an island to make a family meal?
As for having richer lives... It seems to me that more people would play video games, or watch cat videos all day. Have you seen the numbers for how many people spend all of their free time watching TV or playing video games? I'm not against those activities - but 20+ hours/week is a bit excessive for not being productive at all.
Technically, by deciding to not have children, he is doing far more to prevent pollution and damage to the environment than those that have kids. His carbon footprint (pollution footprint) ends with him. People who have kids have their footprint continue into the future - possibly for centuries or millennia.
So, who is really protecting the environment? The one person who drives a car with slightly more emissions, or those who ensure future damage to the environment by their children?
We've self-driven more than 1.5 million miles and are currently out on the streets of Mountain View, CA, Austin, TX, Kirkland, WA and Metro Phoenix, AZ.
It sounds like they have actual cars, driving actual miles, in actual cities. I've also had a coworker who was driving in the Bay Area see one of their cars go by him on the highway - with no one driving.
Now, they might not replace all cars, but even eliminating regular cars in major cities will dramatically change things. Imagine the Bay Area, Los Angeles, Chicago and DC with less than half the cars they have now (due to people sharing, etc.). Suddenly, rush hour isn't a nightmare, and parking spots don't need to sell for $10k/year since it would be cheaper to send your car home instead of parking it - and then it is available for your spouse/child/family member to use, instead of it being parking in a parking ramp downtown. Plus, you could send your car to drive your child to before- and after-school activities instead of doing it yourself.
"Christine, go pick up Carrie from school and drive her to swim practice and then park and wait for her to finish. Then drive her home without stopping at Dairy Queen. (Yes, I named the car Christine.)
You've never tried to get a proposal accepted, have you?
Research dollars aren't exactly easy to come by - especially in a field like theoretical physics. So, it might be good work - but far enough outside the mainstream to be unfunded.
Can anyone knowledgable in the field give a yes/no on the sanity of their research? If I decide to help fund it, I would like some idea that it isn't all snake oil.
Well, $20/hour ($41k/year) is about the median income for a person with a Bachelor's Degree, and Arizona doesn't have the highest cost of living, so they are probably ahead of the game. Especially if their degree is in a lower paying major.
Plus, "ride in car and pay attention" doesn't sound like the highest skilled job. Given the safety record of the cars, it isn't that dangerous of a job, either.
...but this doesn't account for the gigafactory, or that Tesla will pretty-much corner the market in cars *and* lithium batteries in a couple of years.
However, the market for electric cars is a small percentage of overall vehicle sales. According to Wikipedia, Toyota delivered 9.9 million cars in 2012, VW delivered 9.8 million in 2013 and GM delivered 9.9 million in 2015. So, even if Tesla could deliver all 300k cars in 1 year - and it sounds like they can't - it would represent 3% of what the giant automakers deliver in a single year. Given their timeline for delivery, it is more like 1%.
Now, don't get me wrong. I think Tesla is a cool company, and I don't think it's doomed because it "only" has a 1% marketshare. However, we need to consider it in context of the entire automotive industry, and it most likely won't end up as the one car company to rule the world.
Slashdot Mirror
The Commandant is, indeed, the head of the Marine Corps; however, it is definitely part of the Department of the Navy. (See the Marine logo.)
Actually, it did happen.
We have had to move offshore, with its inherent risks, and switch to tar sands and oil shale, which are lower grade and harder to process. Plus, we have moved a lot of power generation from burning oil to natural gas that we are getting from fracking.
So, oil "as we knew it" ended. We have just found ways of compensating. However, we have always known about those sources and known that, at a certain price, they became viable. Now, we are already into those reserves and haven't found anything new for when those run out.
Except, at one point in time, saying "Black people and white people should have the right to marry each other." could incite violence. People could, and did, get hurt for saying those things; so should we have shut those speeches, rallies, protests, and marches down because someone could get hurt?
The hard part about freedom is fighting for the other person's right to say things that you think are sick and twisted. No one fights because they think $DEITY is with the other side - everyone thinks they are "in the right". The Constitution has freedom of speech FIRST for a reason.
Of course, if anything goes beyond "speech" - violence, oppression, etc. then it is time to drop the hammer. However, if it remains speech, then it should be protected.
P.S. - It is legal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It is the desire to incite violence or mayhem that makes it illegal. (Ex: There could be a real fire.)
Vampires wouldn't show up on camera. So, maybe the reason we don't see big foot is a vampire, feeling bad about feeding on humans, fed on big foot and turned him into a vampire.
Just sayin'...
If you lose a few bits of encrypted data you're left with garbage.
Not true. There are methods where you will lose a few blocks of data, but then it will get back on track. For an example of this, look up cipher block chaining.
Of course, having software that won't panic and crash when it hits an error is an entirely different problem.
One problem with a global business is WHEN do you test the failover?
Early Sunday morning in Atlanta? Well, it's the middle of the day on Monday in Japan, Australia, and a lot of other countries. Of course, because of business travelers, Monday is probably one of the worst days of the week for an airline to run a test - despite it being Sunday somewhere else.
Sometimes, there is no good solution, and you end up continuing with what you have because anything else is an even worse idea.
My tax rate is less than 10% (for federal income tax), under 20% for all taxes (federal, including SS/medicare, state and local). Taxes are very regressive.
You are wrong.
See the table here
Summary:
90-95 percentile: 9.3%
95-99 percentile: 14%
Top 1-percenters: 24.6%
Top 0.1-percenters: 26.4%
Oh, and for reference, the bottom 40% had a NEGATIVE effective tax rate.
If you neglect the capital cost, it's $0.66 AUD per 1000 L of water.
However, you can't neglect the capital cost. Plants need to be built, maintained and replaced. They may go lower (per unit of water) the longer the plant runs, but they can't be neglected.
Are you talking about rough play, sports or actually fighting.
Football (American) has been under heavy criticism due to the risk of brain injuries. However, there are schools that have banned tag for a variety of reasons.
We don't have much of a hunting culture here unless you're a toff and even then it's with dogs, not guns.
The US used to. In fact, in many areas, it's actually necessary to keep animal populations in check. Without hunting, the animals would overpopulate and starve. It is well managed by the various DNR agencies within those states. Students used to be able to bring their shotguns and hunting rifles to school since they would go hunting after school and before dinner. Now it just means they are expelled - assuming they aren't charged with a crime as well. Also, most states require you to pass a firearms safety class before you can get a hunting permit, so the students have to know what they are doing.
I'm not your buddy, friend.
The items listed in the summary aren't unnecessary - they are good practices. Readability, ease of maintenance, debugging and error-handling are all good things, and SHOULD be included - even if they aren't needed in a specific instance.
Car analogy: Most cars never need to have airbags, but we put them in because they are a good idea. The same should go for the listed code constructs - they should be there for the times it does matter.
Imagine what you would do if basic survival money wasn't a factor? What would you create? Where would you go? It might take a generation or two to take off the training wheels, but I suspect a great deal of wonderfully creative things coming into existence. Obviously not everyone is creative, but that percentage is actually low.
Well, I think that most people would waste their days having sex, drinking, doing drugs, watching TV, watching cat videos, or playing video games. Even if we say it fixes itself in 1-2 generations, that means we have to survive 20-40 years of transition before things straighten out. I'm sure that will go smoothly, with no lasting damage being done to our society or infrastructure from decades of neglect.
Except for two things...
People don't want to just be comfortable - they want luxuries. Compare a house built 50 or 60 years ago with new construction. In my parent's house, the master bedroom was barely large enough for a full size bed, and everyone shared a bathroom. Now, in new construction, the master bedroom fits a king bed easily, and there is a full bathroom, with tub and shower attached to it. Plus, walk-in closets used to be found mostly on TV shows featuring wealthy characters. Now, almost every house has more than one of them. Do people really need giant bedrooms, giant beds, and marble showers to be "comfortable"? Do you need a giant kitchen with granite countertops and an island to make a family meal?
As for having richer lives... It seems to me that more people would play video games, or watch cat videos all day. Have you seen the numbers for how many people spend all of their free time watching TV or playing video games? I'm not against those activities - but 20+ hours/week is a bit excessive for not being productive at all.
Technically, by deciding to not have children, he is doing far more to prevent pollution and damage to the environment than those that have kids. His carbon footprint (pollution footprint) ends with him. People who have kids have their footprint continue into the future - possibly for centuries or millennia.
So, who is really protecting the environment? The one person who drives a car with slightly more emissions, or those who ensure future damage to the environment by their children?
From: https://www.google.com/selfdri...
We've self-driven more than 1.5 million miles and are currently out on the streets of Mountain View, CA, Austin, TX, Kirkland, WA and Metro Phoenix, AZ.
It sounds like they have actual cars, driving actual miles, in actual cities. I've also had a coworker who was driving in the Bay Area see one of their cars go by him on the highway - with no one driving.
Now, they might not replace all cars, but even eliminating regular cars in major cities will dramatically change things. Imagine the Bay Area, Los Angeles, Chicago and DC with less than half the cars they have now (due to people sharing, etc.). Suddenly, rush hour isn't a nightmare, and parking spots don't need to sell for $10k/year since it would be cheaper to send your car home instead of parking it - and then it is available for your spouse/child/family member to use, instead of it being parking in a parking ramp downtown. Plus, you could send your car to drive your child to before- and after-school activities instead of doing it yourself.
"Christine, go pick up Carrie from school and drive her to swim practice and then park and wait for her to finish. Then drive her home without stopping at Dairy Queen. (Yes, I named the car Christine.)
Because salary is only the company half of the equation. The worker half is "Do I want to live there?"
In a rare exception to Betteridge's Law of Headlines... Yes.
Congratulations to everyone at Space X who contributed to this awesome achievement! You have made space flight exciting again!
Overlays during surgery. See through where the doctor is working, but with other info highlighted.
Astronomy. Highlight stuff in the sky. You could have one in front of a telescope.
Smart glasses - even if there was backlash for Google Glass.
You've never tried to get a proposal accepted, have you?
Research dollars aren't exactly easy to come by - especially in a field like theoretical physics. So, it might be good work - but far enough outside the mainstream to be unfunded.
Can anyone knowledgable in the field give a yes/no on the sanity of their research? If I decide to help fund it, I would like some idea that it isn't all snake oil.
Well, $20/hour ($41k/year) is about the median income for a person with a Bachelor's Degree, and Arizona doesn't have the highest cost of living, so they are probably ahead of the game. Especially if their degree is in a lower paying major.
Plus, "ride in car and pay attention" doesn't sound like the highest skilled job. Given the safety record of the cars, it isn't that dangerous of a job, either.
I can cross-breed a goat and a spider?
Really? Because that would be cool as hell.
...but this doesn't account for the gigafactory, or that Tesla will pretty-much corner the market in cars *and* lithium batteries in a couple of years.
However, the market for electric cars is a small percentage of overall vehicle sales. According to Wikipedia, Toyota delivered 9.9 million cars in 2012, VW delivered 9.8 million in 2013 and GM delivered 9.9 million in 2015. So, even if Tesla could deliver all 300k cars in 1 year - and it sounds like they can't - it would represent 3% of what the giant automakers deliver in a single year. Given their timeline for delivery, it is more like 1%.
Now, don't get me wrong. I think Tesla is a cool company, and I don't think it's doomed because it "only" has a 1% marketshare. However, we need to consider it in context of the entire automotive industry, and it most likely won't end up as the one car company to rule the world.
(*) I'm using the term "literal" by it's dictionary definition.
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.