Following the "every other version of windows is bad" thing, I count Windows 8.1 as the most recent "good", replacing the "bad" Windows 8. That makes Windows 10 another bad version, which so far sounds accurate given the snooping problems.
Of course I used XP until support ended, still use 7, and never used Vista, 8, or 8.1, so my experience is limited.
I put $10k into Tesla when it was at about $20. Of course I panicked and sold when it got to about $40. =p Oh well. Even if I'd kept it all, the only real difference in my life would be that I'd be driving an Aston Martin. (No, of course not a Tesla.)
If you wanted to open a bar in a city that doesn't stupidly allow people to store their personal property on taxpayer-owned land for free, wouldn't you be more inclined to either build abundant parking for your customers without the city forcing you to, or locate your bar near good transit options?
No, you would provide a small number of narrow and insufficient parking spaces, so customers can barely squeeze in and out of their stupidly oversized trucks or give up and park illegally in the lots of neighboring stores and businesses. Or they'll go park on a street anyway, paying a meter if the "storage" isn't free.
See, both options eliminate customers parking in residential neighborhoods.
Not even in the slightest. I don't think you understand people, especially people who frequent bars.
So it appears that in this case, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.
Lumping lots of things together and calling them "GMOs" is like lumping things together and calling them all "chemicals". Sure, there are chemicals that we need to ingest. Does that mean all chemicals are safe to ingest?
We need to be talking about - and the manufacturers and/or government need to be certifying the safety of - each specific genetic modification. Some might be harmless to ingest, but have other side effects, like propagating the use of pesticides that are wiping out bee populations or other similar environmental damage. Show me that the changes you made have benefits that outweigh side effects that will affect consumers or dump on the commons, and I'd approve and/or eat them. I just don't see that happening, which is my concern.
And people lumping all possible genetic modifications together and saying "GMOs are safe you are idiots for doubting science!" scare me just a little more than hippies saying "All GMOs are evil!" Both groups are stupid, but while the latter might impact global food scarcity at some time in the future, the former give a blank check to manufacturers to do things that might hurt me or my family now.
I live on a residential block behind a few bars. If they had less parking, there would be more people parking in our neighborhood. We got the city to create a residential parking zone, with towing for non-residents, but it's only for one block; drunks could just park deeper into the neighborhood and walk a little further. And the thing about drunks walking home at 1 AM from a bar is that they are obnoxiously loud, like to urinate on whatever they happen to be near, and occasionally toss a brick through a car window just for grins.
So no thanks, I'd rather have mandatory parking on site. If you want to stop drunks from driving, catch them as they pull out of the parking lot. Or build cities to better support public transportation, and have that transportation run late enough into the night to service the evening crowd. Or legalize Uber and let their drivers///suckers deal with puke in their cars.
The headline is sufficient for those who do not understand how the power grid works, and anyone who knows how the power grid works would not be misled by the headline.
Even though my bill says "100% wind" on it, and somewhere out there are windmill(s) generating as much electricity as my home consumes, the actual power consumed in my house might just as easily come from the coal plants up the highway. It's all on the same grid.
If you understand that, then it's obvious that "Power Every US Home With Renewables" means "Generate As Much Renewable Energy As All Homes Consume". What appears on the bills of those homeowners is irrelevant.
I went in to Facebook knowing it was using my real name and all my posts were public. I self-censor as appropriate given that limitation.
Google started as a variety of unrelated anonymous and pseudonymous services that I already used when they decided to link them all together and tack on a real-name mandate. No thanks.
One study I read showed kids that grow up around farm animals tend to have healthier immune systems, which is one reason we keep chickens, let our daughter play in the backyard near them, and also feed her their eggs. Local honey too can be useful, but only after the kid is old enough to balance the risk of listeria. (At least, that's what we decided.)
My wife ate peanuts while pregnant, peanut butter in the baby's first year while nursing, and we introduced her to toast with a little peanut butter at about 10 months. Giving her body no introduction to something didn't make any more sense than flooding immune system with something, and after a study came out showing that light doses of peanuts over time could reduce or eliminate the allergy in some kids who expressed it, I felt there was enough science backing what felt right to me to do it.
If something changes from a right-click to a left-double-click, or from a launch button to buried in the start menu, that most definitely is a UI change. And the hazard indicator on cars I've owned has changed from a slider on the steering column, to a toggle push button on the steering column, to a single-press button in the center of the dash.
And "changing the location of something is not a UI change" is just plain wrong when talking about cars. Move the gas pedal to the steering column and you've made a far bigger change to using a car that anything Windows has done in 20 years to using a computer.
The thing that actually does make a drone a drone is the presence of a camera and the ability to operate out of line of sight. Saying that you can't basically says you can't fly drones, which probably wouldn't work because if drones were a crime then only criminals would have drones or something like that.
(I think half the public and half the laws already confuse "drone" with "rc plane", where rc planes are now being called drones even when operated within line of sight. So the same FAA rule that banned drones would probably end up getting RC pilots arrested.)
Fortunately there are laws and court rulings about this, and they define how low you can be without trespassing. The FAA considers anything above 500 feet to be navigable space, and a previous SCOTUS ruling allowed trespassing charges against a paraglider at 83 feet, so the limit is probably somewhere in that area. If he was able to shoot the drone down from the sky, it was most certainly below 83 feet. And of course airplanes and Google Earth examples are silly and meaningless.
The tail pound from your mine leaked and now my farm land is useless. I should be able to sue the coal company for the economic value of my land and income it could have generated for my family for the next 10 generations and if the coal company goes bankrupt I should be able to collect from the share holders in proportion to the remaining liability and stock they own.
What about the share holders who sold out before the leak was discovered? What if the owner died and the money was passed on to heirs? What about the ones that moved to another country? Let's say the leaking pond contaminated your drinking water, and coincidentally two of your children have mental development disorders, which of course you can never prove came from that leak? How much cash is worth that?
So we think, now, 30 years after the fact, that the large amount of lead being released into the air from the automotive industry was responsible for the drastic increases in violent crime in the 1960s and 1970s.
Even supposing we hadn't banned leaded gasoline, how exactly do you think the oil and gas industry would take to new efforts to tax their products today? Do you think consumers would enjoy it? Can we ever prove 100% that this was the cause? How many years back would we need to try to retroactively collect these taxes? Can we even legally do so? Just exactly how much do value do you assign to damaging a baby or young child's brain so that you can appropriate tax gasoline for the effect?
Now take everything I just said and apply it to carbon dioxide and global climate change and see how well it's working.
When applied to the commons - primarily the environment - unregulated capitalism is an absolute failure. Attempting to apply more market forces to it only works if your goal is to hasten the revolution that swings things too far in some other direction.
The fashion industry would like to respectfully disagree with you.
In all seriousness, apparently some change does matter. I read about a study (on phone and too lazy to find link) where heterosexual women were asked to decide which of a group of photographs of men were more "striking" or somesuch. When the group was almost all people with beards, those without we're deemed more striking. And vice versa.
So, if everyone does something one way, being different stands out. Not everyone is creative enough to find their own own way, but they can jump on the coat tails of the actual creative innovators. Eventually the whole market moves and "change" has happened for "change's sake", but it's roots are justified in human desire to appreciate the unique and innovative.*
* a desire that is not shared by all, and often misguided, admittedly.
"Blinkers" are both turn signal and hazard indicators. Cars I have owned manufactured in the past 20 years have had at least three distinct control methods to turn on and off the hazard indicators. So no, "blinkers" haven't been standard for 35 years.
From the video, it looks like the Google car did leave some space in front of it. It should have realized that the person approaching from behind was not stopping fast enough and might rear end it, and, prior to impact, applied a quick burst of gas then brake to use up some of that buffer space. That would give the approaching driver additional space to stop.
Then again, when I do that, it's because I see the panic in the eyes of the driver approaching from behind, and I can also tell that he's trying to stop and just doesn't quite have enough space. It's been successful a few times. Were I to see that the approaching driver is way too fast and, for example, looking at his phone, I would assume he wasn't going to try to stop and me eating into my buffer space would just make it more likely my car would have front-end damage, too. I'd be better served trying to drive out of the way. Fortunately I've only been in this situation twice and the driver behind me both times decided to drive into the shoulder/ditch instead of rear end me.
As shown in the video, the Google car both stopped short (leaving space for it to move up a few feet and brake again when it realized the driver behind wouldn't stop in time, giving the driver behind more space to stop) AND wasn't the first car at the light, so even if it used up its buffer space and was still shoved, it would neither be driving nor likely get shoved into the intersection.
Based on the nude male bicycle gang that passed us near Golden Gate Park when we were there on vacation a few weeks ago, I think the correct verb is "is".
AT&T has given me an IPV6 address and routes traffic to certain destinations using it. I can tell because those destinations time out if I haven't visited them recently, then after a minute or so of trying (no matter how many windows, refreshes, etc. while other sites work fine), they suddenly start working - until I don't visit them for 10 minutes or so and they reset. Facebook, Google properties fall into this category.
According to the internet it's a know problem in AT&T's IPV6 implementation and I need to turn it off at the router. I keep meaning to take care of it but then again I keep thinking Google Fiber will get here and I won't have to bother.
Slashdot Mirror
Following the "every other version of windows is bad" thing, I count Windows 8.1 as the most recent "good", replacing the "bad" Windows 8. That makes Windows 10 another bad version, which so far sounds accurate given the snooping problems.
Of course I used XP until support ended, still use 7, and never used Vista, 8, or 8.1, so my experience is limited.
I put $10k into Tesla when it was at about $20. Of course I panicked and sold when it got to about $40. =p Oh well. Even if I'd kept it all, the only real difference in my life would be that I'd be driving an Aston Martin. (No, of course not a Tesla.)
Unless those people took a golden parachute and were replaced by the time the second offense occurs, right?
Are these always somewhere under the driver's dash? Are there cars where they are relatively easy to access from the passenger's side?
I'm wondering if a front-seat Uber passenger could "tie their shoes" and install one while welcomed into a car.
If you wanted to open a bar in a city that doesn't stupidly allow people to store their personal property on taxpayer-owned land for free, wouldn't you be more inclined to either build abundant parking for your customers without the city forcing you to, or locate your bar near good transit options?
No, you would provide a small number of narrow and insufficient parking spaces, so customers can barely squeeze in and out of their stupidly oversized trucks or give up and park illegally in the lots of neighboring stores and businesses. Or they'll go park on a street anyway, paying a meter if the "storage" isn't free.
See, both options eliminate customers parking in residential neighborhoods.
Not even in the slightest. I don't think you understand people, especially people who frequent bars.
So it appears that in this case, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.
Oh, well you had an agenda to push. No wonder.
Lumping lots of things together and calling them "GMOs" is like lumping things together and calling them all "chemicals". Sure, there are chemicals that we need to ingest. Does that mean all chemicals are safe to ingest?
We need to be talking about - and the manufacturers and/or government need to be certifying the safety of - each specific genetic modification. Some might be harmless to ingest, but have other side effects, like propagating the use of pesticides that are wiping out bee populations or other similar environmental damage. Show me that the changes you made have benefits that outweigh side effects that will affect consumers or dump on the commons, and I'd approve and/or eat them. I just don't see that happening, which is my concern.
And people lumping all possible genetic modifications together and saying "GMOs are safe you are idiots for doubting science!" scare me just a little more than hippies saying "All GMOs are evil!" Both groups are stupid, but while the latter might impact global food scarcity at some time in the future, the former give a blank check to manufacturers to do things that might hurt me or my family now.
I live on a residential block behind a few bars. If they had less parking, there would be more people parking in our neighborhood. We got the city to create a residential parking zone, with towing for non-residents, but it's only for one block; drunks could just park deeper into the neighborhood and walk a little further. And the thing about drunks walking home at 1 AM from a bar is that they are obnoxiously loud, like to urinate on whatever they happen to be near, and occasionally toss a brick through a car window just for grins.
So no thanks, I'd rather have mandatory parking on site. If you want to stop drunks from driving, catch them as they pull out of the parking lot. Or build cities to better support public transportation, and have that transportation run late enough into the night to service the evening crowd. Or legalize Uber and let their drivers///suckers deal with puke in their cars.
The headline is sufficient for those who do not understand how the power grid works, and anyone who knows how the power grid works would not be misled by the headline.
Even though my bill says "100% wind" on it, and somewhere out there are windmill(s) generating as much electricity as my home consumes, the actual power consumed in my house might just as easily come from the coal plants up the highway. It's all on the same grid.
If you understand that, then it's obvious that "Power Every US Home With Renewables" means "Generate As Much Renewable Energy As All Homes Consume". What appears on the bills of those homeowners is irrelevant.
I went in to Facebook knowing it was using my real name and all my posts were public. I self-censor as appropriate given that limitation.
Google started as a variety of unrelated anonymous and pseudonymous services that I already used when they decided to link them all together and tack on a real-name mandate. No thanks.
One study I read showed kids that grow up around farm animals tend to have healthier immune systems, which is one reason we keep chickens, let our daughter play in the backyard near them, and also feed her their eggs. Local honey too can be useful, but only after the kid is old enough to balance the risk of listeria. (At least, that's what we decided.)
My wife ate peanuts while pregnant, peanut butter in the baby's first year while nursing, and we introduced her to toast with a little peanut butter at about 10 months. Giving her body no introduction to something didn't make any more sense than flooding immune system with something, and after a study came out showing that light doses of peanuts over time could reduce or eliminate the allergy in some kids who expressed it, I felt there was enough science backing what felt right to me to do it.
If something changes from a right-click to a left-double-click, or from a launch button to buried in the start menu, that most definitely is a UI change. And the hazard indicator on cars I've owned has changed from a slider on the steering column, to a toggle push button on the steering column, to a single-press button in the center of the dash.
And "changing the location of something is not a UI change" is just plain wrong when talking about cars. Move the gas pedal to the steering column and you've made a far bigger change to using a car that anything Windows has done in 20 years to using a computer.
EVERYTHING gains velocity (9.8 m/s^2) when falling to earth...Have you ever even heard of Newton?
Have you ever heard of terminal velocity?
The thing that actually does make a drone a drone is the presence of a camera and the ability to operate out of line of sight. Saying that you can't basically says you can't fly drones, which probably wouldn't work because if drones were a crime then only criminals would have drones or something like that.
(I think half the public and half the laws already confuse "drone" with "rc plane", where rc planes are now being called drones even when operated within line of sight. So the same FAA rule that banned drones would probably end up getting RC pilots arrested.)
Fortunately there are laws and court rulings about this, and they define how low you can be without trespassing. The FAA considers anything above 500 feet to be navigable space, and a previous SCOTUS ruling allowed trespassing charges against a paraglider at 83 feet, so the limit is probably somewhere in that area. If he was able to shoot the drone down from the sky, it was most certainly below 83 feet. And of course airplanes and Google Earth examples are silly and meaningless.
The tail pound from your mine leaked and now my farm land is useless. I should be able to sue the coal company for the economic value of my land and income it could have generated for my family for the next 10 generations and if the coal company goes bankrupt I should be able to collect from the share holders in proportion to the remaining liability and stock they own.
What about the share holders who sold out before the leak was discovered? What if the owner died and the money was passed on to heirs? What about the ones that moved to another country? Let's say the leaking pond contaminated your drinking water, and coincidentally two of your children have mental development disorders, which of course you can never prove came from that leak? How much cash is worth that?
So we think, now, 30 years after the fact, that the large amount of lead being released into the air from the automotive industry was responsible for the drastic increases in violent crime in the 1960s and 1970s.
Even supposing we hadn't banned leaded gasoline, how exactly do you think the oil and gas industry would take to new efforts to tax their products today? Do you think consumers would enjoy it? Can we ever prove 100% that this was the cause? How many years back would we need to try to retroactively collect these taxes? Can we even legally do so? Just exactly how much do value do you assign to damaging a baby or young child's brain so that you can appropriate tax gasoline for the effect?
Now take everything I just said and apply it to carbon dioxide and global climate change and see how well it's working.
When applied to the commons - primarily the environment - unregulated capitalism is an absolute failure. Attempting to apply more market forces to it only works if your goal is to hasten the revolution that swings things too far in some other direction.
The fashion industry would like to respectfully disagree with you.
In all seriousness, apparently some change does matter. I read about a study (on phone and too lazy to find link) where heterosexual women were asked to decide which of a group of photographs of men were more "striking" or somesuch. When the group was almost all people with beards, those without we're deemed more striking. And vice versa.
So, if everyone does something one way, being different stands out. Not everyone is creative enough to find their own own way, but they can jump on the coat tails of the actual creative innovators. Eventually the whole market moves and "change" has happened for "change's sake", but it's roots are justified in human desire to appreciate the unique and innovative.*
* a desire that is not shared by all, and often misguided, admittedly.
"Blinkers" are both turn signal and hazard indicators. Cars I have owned manufactured in the past 20 years have had at least three distinct control methods to turn on and off the hazard indicators. So no, "blinkers" haven't been standard for 35 years.
From the video, it looks like the Google car did leave some space in front of it. It should have realized that the person approaching from behind was not stopping fast enough and might rear end it, and, prior to impact, applied a quick burst of gas then brake to use up some of that buffer space. That would give the approaching driver additional space to stop.
Then again, when I do that, it's because I see the panic in the eyes of the driver approaching from behind, and I can also tell that he's trying to stop and just doesn't quite have enough space. It's been successful a few times. Were I to see that the approaching driver is way too fast and, for example, looking at his phone, I would assume he wasn't going to try to stop and me eating into my buffer space would just make it more likely my car would have front-end damage, too. I'd be better served trying to drive out of the way. Fortunately I've only been in this situation twice and the driver behind me both times decided to drive into the shoulder/ditch instead of rear end me.
As shown in the video, the Google car both stopped short (leaving space for it to move up a few feet and brake again when it realized the driver behind wouldn't stop in time, giving the driver behind more space to stop) AND wasn't the first car at the light, so even if it used up its buffer space and was still shoved, it would neither be driving nor likely get shoved into the intersection.
Mathematics isn't a science any more than fashion is a science. They are just off the scales at different ends.
Based on the nude male bicycle gang that passed us near Golden Gate Park when we were there on vacation a few weeks ago, I think the correct verb is "is".
AT&T has given me an IPV6 address and routes traffic to certain destinations using it. I can tell because those destinations time out if I haven't visited them recently, then after a minute or so of trying (no matter how many windows, refreshes, etc. while other sites work fine), they suddenly start working - until I don't visit them for 10 minutes or so and they reset. Facebook, Google properties fall into this category.
According to the internet it's a know problem in AT&T's IPV6 implementation and I need to turn it off at the router. I keep meaning to take care of it but then again I keep thinking Google Fiber will get here and I won't have to bother.
Obamacars