Let's say my work environment exposes me to an international population that crosses borders at regular intervals within the year, and there is a lot of pressure to not take any days off over large multi-week intervals -- to play-through-the-pain as it were. Whatever vaccine there is, inject me with it!
Over the course of my career, I remember a time when I had to lobby really hard to get my health care provider to give me, not in a high-risk group (not a small child, old person, or health care provider) the flu vaccine. Standing in front of a phalanx of coughing, sneezing people or being required to meet face-to-face with same coughing, sneezing persons, many who just got off a plane from parts of the world where flu epidemics are bred, this didn't count as "high risk."
This has changed -- these days there are at-work stand-in-line-to-get-your-flu-shot clinics staffed by volunteer nurses to give the flu shot to anyone who flashes their employee health-insurance card or a 10 dollar bill. One year a lady in line behind me forgot her health insurance card and I just pulled a 10 out of my wallet and handed it to the nurse -- not out of altruism but out of self interest and "herd immunity."
I got a vibe that earlier on, "they" didn't really want non high-risk people vaccinated for flu on account of the vaccine-risk vs flu-risk tradeoff. The memory of the "Swine Flu" scare was such that the Swine Flu was the Comet Kohoutek of pandemic flu but the vaccine was blamed on killing people through Guillain-Barre Syndrome as some mysterious auto-immune reaction to the vaccine. I got a severe scolding from a speech-therapist colleague on a collaborative research project, "You got the flue vaccine? You haven't seen what I have seen of paralyzed people coming into my clinic for swallowing therapy in the aftermath of the flu vaccine!"
Now, the vibe is the flu vaccine is perfectly safe and everyone who wants it should get it.
Long story short, the flu vaccine is a bad example of "something that is good for you and entirely irrational to pass up." There was a time within my work career when others than crazy new-age-ie medically ignorant people had vaccine skepticism.
Back in the day (the early 1960's?), a person had to get a stuff-ton of "shots" to travel to Europe. Today, it is hard to understand regarding Germany and Italy as being that level of "Third World", but you have to remember that was barely 15 years after the WW-II devastation.
How about "to reenter the U.S. after leaving it, you have to be current on the measles and other vaccines?"
The idea that women may be biologically superior in two traditionally male-dominated domains offends a person so much that they reply with two untruths?
There are all manner of serviceable components on modern cars, that is, unless you buy your cars new and never drive them long enough to need to replace an O2 sensor or any number of challenging-to-access parts.
Australia is putting in service the human-piloted Joint Strike Fighter.
On account of smaller hands and more slender arms, women are particularly suited to being automotive repair/service technicians, especially with the crowded engine compartments of modern cars.
I had this discussion with U.S. Air Force, and my question whether women had a higher G-load tolerance (such as in high-performance aircraft), and this was answered affirmatively.
Cleared for immediate takeoff with an under-powered jet still on the runway straight in front of you?
When SAC did this back during the Cold War, they were conducting a drill to get their bombers in the air during the time they had before a Soviet sub-launched missile on a depressed trajectory could wipe them all out on the ground. The author of the Web page describing this told of how the families would gather at the fence by the end of the runway to see the spectacle of one jet after another roaring by. The author also suggested that it was not a great idea for the families to watch this because one engine failure could result in a flaming pile-up of their family members serving on those crews. This was not a safe mode of operation, but it was done because our service members sacrifice their safety for the common good, in this case, maintaining the condition of deterrence during the Cold War.
Yeah, yeah, I am just a dumb airline passenger and the MD-88 ahead may have reached its V-1 no-abort speed prior to the MD-88 I was on reaching full power. All I know is that a couple of weeks later at O'Hare International a jet blew up an engine midway down the runway, the news media was questioning what this column of black smoke at O'Hare meant for a story, and we later found it took a formation of fire trucks to put out the flames to get the passengers safely off that plane. Another jet sequenced too closely could have ploughed into that wreck. I just get this vibe that the way business is conducted at World's Busiest Atlanta Hartsfield is shaving some corners and no one wants to admit to nothing. Yes, the controllers know what they are doing, the pilots know what they are doing, and you changed in Atlanta to get the flight you wanted so keep quiet?
I got a request for feedback from my last flight, I ignored it, and then they started nagging me for feedback.
OK, you want feedback? What is going on with your operations out of Atlanta? I was in an older twin-engine jet not known for its acceleration (MD-88, JT8D-200 engines). Looking out the starboard window, as soon as I saw the same kind of jet from the same airline start laying down kerosene smoke for it takeoff roll, we swung onto the active runway right behind it. I thought we were doing a "position and hold", but we immediately powered up our engines and started our takeoff roll.
I asked in the comments section if this was standard procedure at Atlanta and if this were OK, explaining that I read that the military would conduct such rapid takeoff drills during the Cold War, but this type of thing was recognized as having the potential for a really bad accident if one of the jets on the runway had to abort its takeoff, but the military did such things because men and women in uniform assume risks for our common defense.
This started some kind of investigation, and I was called to the telephone to repeat my comments orally and answer questions about "my story", some of the questions hinting that I was a stupid non-pilot. "Look, I saw the jet ahead of us down the runway through the cloud of the engine smoke on those older MD-80's just as we swung onto the runway and immediately went to full power to start our takeoff." "Did you still see the other plane during your takeoff." "No, not after we lined up on the runway, I can't see that way out my passenger window."
The person on the phone got all "corporate" on me that yes, they will investigate this internally but they volunteered without my asking that they would not share what they found. No, "our crew followed all relevant safety procedures, and if you have questions about operations at Atlanta Hartsfield you can contact the FAA at 555-1212" or "thank you for your input, we are putting the word out to our crews reminding them to maintain safe separation from other aircraft."
Don't worry your pretty little head, they tell me -- fine! You nag me for survey feedback and you then don't want to hear what I have to tell you. This is this corporate garbage "admit nothing, nothing! on anything safety related because 1) the passenger doesn't need to know and 2) we might get sued."
Some while ago the Onion had an article about office workers who wanted to do that to a colleague who tells them they are using MS-Office "wrong" because they are not availing themselves of the latest shortcuts.
My point is not (should I put "not" in caps?) whether or not taxing liquid fuels is a good way to fund roads.
My point is that the cost of liquid fuels already contains a tax, a fee, a charge to pay for the roads and if you are going to make a comparison between the energy cost of operating an EV vs an IC engine car, you need to take that fee into account.
I don't have any problem that the small number of EV users are effectively exempted from paying this tax. We can argue the merits of subsidy, but for now, that exemption is a subsidy, and such helps push EVs and EV ownership along the cost curve. But when EVs become ubiquitous, EV owners will have to contribute to the cost of the roads by whatever administrative arrangement to pay for roads is enacted, and this will change somewhat the economics of EV vs IC operation.
As to IC engines being at the edge of no further progress, you shall see significant progress with the next generation of small displacement highly turbocharged high compression engines already in the product development pipeline. At least under the Obama Administration, there was a road map (to excuse the pun) of substantial increases in the fuel efficiency standards in the next 10 years, and yes, those regs were informed by scientific and engineering input regarding the momentum of research on improved IC engines.
At least for USians, a substantial part of the cost of gas or diesel is the tax earmarked for new roads and maintaining existing roads. That the EV owner currently does not pay these taxes could be regarded as a subsidy to encourage use of electric cars, but when EVs are numerous, this will change the fuel-cost calculation, especially against the coming generation of more fuel efficient IC engines.
You had the same kind of thing with nano technology.
Everyone was worried about Grey Goo and being stuck with the kids while your wife, whom you suspected of cheating because she worked long hours at her engineering job wearing shoes that did not meet Speaker Ryan's dress code, was in fact becoming a nano-bot zombie.
Instead, nano was a term you needed to sex up your NSF proposal and pitch to private capital investors, but what you were doing had nothing to do with Drexler assemblers and pretty much mass fabrication materials tech.
Everyone here is talking about you finding out what your dog is saying to you. It is not about you. It is much more sinister than that.
Your dog will go "woof! woof!" into an Internet-connected microphone, and the next day, crates of premium dog food and what you consider to be overpriced dog toys will appear on your front steps.
I think that comedian Steve Martin already had this problem in the pre-Internet era with his cat who had figured out how to put $3000 worth of cat toys on Martin's credit card.
What does Python do for you that Java does not do better?
Java is the new COBOL? No, Java is the new Turbo Pascal. Yes, it is compiled, but it is incrementally compiled inside Eclipse or NetBeans so the compile step is nearly instantaneous. You say C++ IDEs point out your errors, but you have to run a time-consuming compile step to see all of your errors -- not so with Java.
Java is the new statically-typed bondage-and-discipline language like Pascal? No, Java has Reflection. You can call any method on any object provided you know its signature. Yeah, yeah, Reflection is clumsy, but you use it inside of a library. You know all those Java how-to books telling you about all of those ActionListener inner classes to intercept button pushes and menu selections cluttering up your code? Fuggedaboutit! Class java.beans.EventHandler uses Reflection to connect a button or menu selection to a method in any object you want, provided it has the correct signature. Yes this is "dynamic" and it bypasses the static type checking that your target method indeed has the correct signature, but it is exactly what Python does.
Java is the new FORTRAN? No, Java is the new Matlab with its enormous numerical library and Command and Figure windows for immediate execution, scripting, and plotting numerical results. Matlab is Java -- the Command and Figure windows are JFrames. Matlab is a Java shell -- from the Command Window or from M-files you can create instances of any Java object and poke at them (invoke their methods). If you don't want to pay serious coin for Matlab, there is a free software package called Mathnium, written entirely in Java and offering the same kind of Command and Figure window command-shell scripting goodness.
Beyond that, Java has proper Garbage Collection rather than reference-counted garbage. For numerical processing Java has proper arrays with optimized bounds checking instead of whatever the heck NumPy cobbles together. Java has real support for native threads running on different cores instead of whatever kind of wimpy simulation (green threads?) is offered on Python. Java has a standardized GUI library in Swing instead of what the heck are you supposed to use in Python?
For all the griping, doing a clean install of Windows 10 sans bloatware is a piece of cake. First you download Windows 10 (for free) to a handy thumb drive with at least 4 Gig free.
If you have an activated Windows license that is Windows 10 upgrade eligible, you just do an Update Install by selecting it from the thumb drive. This affords you a digital-signature-based activation of Windows 10 for your processor/motherboard combination. Next, you get into your boot setup and boot from your Windows 10 thumb drive to do the clean install.
You don't need to save CD-ROMS or serial number cards or anything in your sock drawer anymore. You don't even need to remember where you kept the thumb drive -- you can always re-download the Windows 10 installer to a fresh thumb drive. So if your system is compromised and you want to start over, you can reinstall Windows anytime you want to.
So I guess there is some value to the telemetry sent to Redmond, WA. Cool!
Scotty knew enough to start with an archaic computer he had never seen before (Ach! The keyboard, yes!) and sketch out the process for generating transparent aluminum, so I would consider him considerably further skilled than a technician.
Maybe we should think of this fictional character as the 23rd century counterpart to a naval officer (Scotty had officer rank, we wasn't a Chief Warrant Officer or such rank) in charge of Engineering on a nuclear aircraft carrier? Who probably has at least an undergrad degree in Nuclear Engineering?
As to getting battered by a shovel, didn't locomotives lose their shovels decades ago when they switched from coal-fired steam to oil-fired Diesel?
"Rudeness becomes ubiquitous, as the device's infuriating notification-chimes invade every corner of public life," McGraw said. "When the ethically bereft begin transmitting images obtained under questionable circumstances, espionage becomes so prevalent as to threaten the integrity of the French populace."
(or at least the Onion was on to this 13 year ago)
OK, the Soccer Moms where you live like to take corners in a four-wheel power slide, carve donuts in the soccer field when their kid loses, and go drinking until 2 AM after a game. Who knew?
There is this saying as old as the auto industry that the most critical safety component of any car is "the nut behind the wheel."
This crash safety tests are fine, and IIHS is trying to make them more fine, but they publish interesting (if not macabre) data on vehicle death rates that don't strictly correlate with the crash-test ratings.
Cheap subcompacts favored by first-time new-car buyers do poorly and two-seat sports cars do even worse. You would think that pickup trucks would do well on account of their bulk and mass, but they don't do as well as you would think, although IIHS found that many aren't that great in their crash tests. Boring sedans do OK and Japanese boring sedans do even better, but nothing tops minivans for not killing people.
These real-world results seem to correlate with driver demographics, with cautious Soccer Moms in their minivans being very safe and other people, not as much.
What drove this home, to excuse a pun, is the time you could buy a Corolla with either a Chevy Nova badge or a Toyota. The Chevy was significantly more dangerous even though it came from the same Fremont, CA plant that later got turned into the Tesla factory. Do you suppose that snobs paying the couple-hundred dollar premium to get a proper Toyota drive more carefully?
where the bug-exploit reveal is "cleaner" if it comes from a volunteer donor rather from a humanities grad student or homeless person who gets money from Plasma-R-Us?
As with code "smells", the response to the Seattle study suffers from study "smells."
It seems the people want a certain outcome, namely, that increasing the minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of working persons trying to get by. I mean, who can be against that apart from some mean-spirited Conservatives and clueless Libertarians, no?
But isn't science supposed to be about where the data lead instead about what we want the outcome to be? This study isn't what we want to hear so oh noes, the study has flaws and it doesn't agree with all of those other studies.
I am sure this study has flaws along with every other data-collection and interpretation effort in the social sciences. My concern is with the confirmation-bias-y tone of the parent post, like the Wild West prospector who sees a few yellow sparkles and starts hopping up in down, "There's goooolllld in them thar heels!"
Whether comments are meritorious is the domain of Moderation.
Yes, I do not know what "we are actually talking about." That is why I am offering analogies posed as questions. It seems that very few people commenting here "get" what the Java Module System does. How does this make you feel?
Could they be talking about something like COM and ActiveX? COM and ActiveX modules are nothing more than DLLs, but they are registered into the Registry and have versioning and All That Jazz. There is something called the Global Assembly Cache (GAC -- is this a Klingon delicacy?) in the.NET universe doing the same thing?
By that reasoning and way of bending the English language to their will, LD_LIBRARY_PATH is not a "modularity system" for loading a DLL whereas finding a COM or ActiveX module through its GUID is such a thing?
For all the shade thrown on Microsoft and Windows and especially the Registry, there is a certain brittleness to requiring PATH be set to find your DLL module and a certain robustness to doing regsvr32 MyModule.ocx and then being able to load MyModule by supplying its global identifier? Whether or not people believe the COM/ActiveX way is better; I am trying to say it is different from simply having MyModule.dll on the PATH, and I am asking this is the correct interpretation of what Java 9 is trying to do?
And if COM/ActiveX registration is what Java 9 is trying to do, then there are indeed other systems on the planet with this feature, namely Windows API/Visual C++ / Windows.NET/C#? Not that there is anything wrong with that!
Slashdot Mirror
Let's say my work environment exposes me to an international population that crosses borders at regular intervals within the year, and there is a lot of pressure to not take any days off over large multi-week intervals -- to play-through-the-pain as it were. Whatever vaccine there is, inject me with it!
Over the course of my career, I remember a time when I had to lobby really hard to get my health care provider to give me, not in a high-risk group (not a small child, old person, or health care provider) the flu vaccine. Standing in front of a phalanx of coughing, sneezing people or being required to meet face-to-face with same coughing, sneezing persons, many who just got off a plane from parts of the world where flu epidemics are bred, this didn't count as "high risk."
This has changed -- these days there are at-work stand-in-line-to-get-your-flu-shot clinics staffed by volunteer nurses to give the flu shot to anyone who flashes their employee health-insurance card or a 10 dollar bill. One year a lady in line behind me forgot her health insurance card and I just pulled a 10 out of my wallet and handed it to the nurse -- not out of altruism but out of self interest and "herd immunity."
I got a vibe that earlier on, "they" didn't really want non high-risk people vaccinated for flu on account of the vaccine-risk vs flu-risk tradeoff. The memory of the "Swine Flu" scare was such that the Swine Flu was the Comet Kohoutek of pandemic flu but the vaccine was blamed on killing people through Guillain-Barre Syndrome as some mysterious auto-immune reaction to the vaccine. I got a severe scolding from a speech-therapist colleague on a collaborative research project, "You got the flue vaccine? You haven't seen what I have seen of paralyzed people coming into my clinic for swallowing therapy in the aftermath of the flu vaccine!"
Now, the vibe is the flu vaccine is perfectly safe and everyone who wants it should get it.
Long story short, the flu vaccine is a bad example of "something that is good for you and entirely irrational to pass up." There was a time within my work career when others than crazy new-age-ie medically ignorant people had vaccine skepticism.
Back in the day (the early 1960's?), a person had to get a stuff-ton of "shots" to travel to Europe. Today, it is hard to understand regarding Germany and Italy as being that level of "Third World", but you have to remember that was barely 15 years after the WW-II devastation.
How about "to reenter the U.S. after leaving it, you have to be current on the measles and other vaccines?"
The idea that women may be biologically superior in two traditionally male-dominated domains offends a person so much that they reply with two untruths?
There are all manner of serviceable components on modern cars, that is, unless you buy your cars new and never drive them long enough to need to replace an O2 sensor or any number of challenging-to-access parts.
Australia is putting in service the human-piloted Joint Strike Fighter.
https://www.bing.com/videos/se...
. . .you have nothing to fear from the police wanting to search your car.
On account of smaller hands and more slender arms, women are particularly suited to being automotive repair/service technicians, especially with the crowded engine compartments of modern cars.
I had this discussion with U.S. Air Force, and my question whether women had a higher G-load tolerance (such as in high-performance aircraft), and this was answered affirmatively.
Cleared for immediate takeoff with an under-powered jet still on the runway straight in front of you?
When SAC did this back during the Cold War, they were conducting a drill to get their bombers in the air during the time they had before a Soviet sub-launched missile on a depressed trajectory could wipe them all out on the ground. The author of the Web page describing this told of how the families would gather at the fence by the end of the runway to see the spectacle of one jet after another roaring by. The author also suggested that it was not a great idea for the families to watch this because one engine failure could result in a flaming pile-up of their family members serving on those crews. This was not a safe mode of operation, but it was done because our service members sacrifice their safety for the common good, in this case, maintaining the condition of deterrence during the Cold War.
Yeah, yeah, I am just a dumb airline passenger and the MD-88 ahead may have reached its V-1 no-abort speed prior to the MD-88 I was on reaching full power. All I know is that a couple of weeks later at O'Hare International a jet blew up an engine midway down the runway, the news media was questioning what this column of black smoke at O'Hare meant for a story, and we later found it took a formation of fire trucks to put out the flames to get the passengers safely off that plane. Another jet sequenced too closely could have ploughed into that wreck. I just get this vibe that the way business is conducted at World's Busiest Atlanta Hartsfield is shaving some corners and no one wants to admit to nothing. Yes, the controllers know what they are doing, the pilots know what they are doing, and you changed in Atlanta to get the flight you wanted so keep quiet?
I got a request for feedback from my last flight, I ignored it, and then they started nagging me for feedback.
OK, you want feedback? What is going on with your operations out of Atlanta? I was in an older twin-engine jet not known for its acceleration (MD-88, JT8D-200 engines). Looking out the starboard window, as soon as I saw the same kind of jet from the same airline start laying down kerosene smoke for it takeoff roll, we swung onto the active runway right behind it. I thought we were doing a "position and hold", but we immediately powered up our engines and started our takeoff roll.
I asked in the comments section if this was standard procedure at Atlanta and if this were OK, explaining that I read that the military would conduct such rapid takeoff drills during the Cold War, but this type of thing was recognized as having the potential for a really bad accident if one of the jets on the runway had to abort its takeoff, but the military did such things because men and women in uniform assume risks for our common defense.
This started some kind of investigation, and I was called to the telephone to repeat my comments orally and answer questions about "my story", some of the questions hinting that I was a stupid non-pilot. "Look, I saw the jet ahead of us down the runway through the cloud of the engine smoke on those older MD-80's just as we swung onto the runway and immediately went to full power to start our takeoff." "Did you still see the other plane during your takeoff." "No, not after we lined up on the runway, I can't see that way out my passenger window."
The person on the phone got all "corporate" on me that yes, they will investigate this internally but they volunteered without my asking that they would not share what they found. No, "our crew followed all relevant safety procedures, and if you have questions about operations at Atlanta Hartsfield you can contact the FAA at 555-1212" or "thank you for your input, we are putting the word out to our crews reminding them to maintain safe separation from other aircraft." Don't worry your pretty little head, they tell me -- fine! You nag me for survey feedback and you then don't want to hear what I have to tell you. This is this corporate garbage "admit nothing, nothing! on anything safety related because 1) the passenger doesn't need to know and 2) we might get sued."
Some while ago the Onion had an article about office workers who wanted to do that to a colleague who tells them they are using MS-Office "wrong" because they are not availing themselves of the latest shortcuts.
My point is not (should I put "not" in caps?) whether or not taxing liquid fuels is a good way to fund roads.
My point is that the cost of liquid fuels already contains a tax, a fee, a charge to pay for the roads and if you are going to make a comparison between the energy cost of operating an EV vs an IC engine car, you need to take that fee into account.
I don't have any problem that the small number of EV users are effectively exempted from paying this tax. We can argue the merits of subsidy, but for now, that exemption is a subsidy, and such helps push EVs and EV ownership along the cost curve. But when EVs become ubiquitous, EV owners will have to contribute to the cost of the roads by whatever administrative arrangement to pay for roads is enacted, and this will change somewhat the economics of EV vs IC operation.
As to IC engines being at the edge of no further progress, you shall see significant progress with the next generation of small displacement highly turbocharged high compression engines already in the product development pipeline. At least under the Obama Administration, there was a road map (to excuse the pun) of substantial increases in the fuel efficiency standards in the next 10 years, and yes, those regs were informed by scientific and engineering input regarding the momentum of research on improved IC engines.
At least for USians, a substantial part of the cost of gas or diesel is the tax earmarked for new roads and maintaining existing roads. That the EV owner currently does not pay these taxes could be regarded as a subsidy to encourage use of electric cars, but when EVs are numerous, this will change the fuel-cost calculation, especially against the coming generation of more fuel efficient IC engines.
You had the same kind of thing with nano technology.
Everyone was worried about Grey Goo and being stuck with the kids while your wife, whom you suspected of cheating because she worked long hours at her engineering job wearing shoes that did not meet Speaker Ryan's dress code, was in fact becoming a nano-bot zombie.
Instead, nano was a term you needed to sex up your NSF proposal and pitch to private capital investors, but what you were doing had nothing to do with Drexler assemblers and pretty much mass fabrication materials tech.
Don't you get it, people?
Everyone here is talking about you finding out what your dog is saying to you. It is not about you. It is much more sinister than that.
Your dog will go "woof! woof!" into an Internet-connected microphone, and the next day, crates of premium dog food and what you consider to be overpriced dog toys will appear on your front steps.
I think that comedian Steve Martin already had this problem in the pre-Internet era with his cat who had figured out how to put $3000 worth of cat toys on Martin's credit card.
What does Python do for you that Java does not do better?
Java is the new COBOL? No, Java is the new Turbo Pascal. Yes, it is compiled, but it is incrementally compiled inside Eclipse or NetBeans so the compile step is nearly instantaneous. You say C++ IDEs point out your errors, but you have to run a time-consuming compile step to see all of your errors -- not so with Java.
Java is the new statically-typed bondage-and-discipline language like Pascal? No, Java has Reflection. You can call any method on any object provided you know its signature. Yeah, yeah, Reflection is clumsy, but you use it inside of a library. You know all those Java how-to books telling you about all of those ActionListener inner classes to intercept button pushes and menu selections cluttering up your code? Fuggedaboutit! Class java.beans.EventHandler uses Reflection to connect a button or menu selection to a method in any object you want, provided it has the correct signature. Yes this is "dynamic" and it bypasses the static type checking that your target method indeed has the correct signature, but it is exactly what Python does.
Java is the new FORTRAN? No, Java is the new Matlab with its enormous numerical library and Command and Figure windows for immediate execution, scripting, and plotting numerical results. Matlab is Java -- the Command and Figure windows are JFrames. Matlab is a Java shell -- from the Command Window or from M-files you can create instances of any Java object and poke at them (invoke their methods). If you don't want to pay serious coin for Matlab, there is a free software package called Mathnium, written entirely in Java and offering the same kind of Command and Figure window command-shell scripting goodness.
Beyond that, Java has proper Garbage Collection rather than reference-counted garbage. For numerical processing Java has proper arrays with optimized bounds checking instead of whatever the heck NumPy cobbles together. Java has real support for native threads running on different cores instead of whatever kind of wimpy simulation (green threads?) is offered on Python. Java has a standardized GUI library in Swing instead of what the heck are you supposed to use in Python?
For all the griping, doing a clean install of Windows 10 sans bloatware is a piece of cake. First you download Windows 10 (for free) to a handy thumb drive with at least 4 Gig free.
If you have an activated Windows license that is Windows 10 upgrade eligible, you just do an Update Install by selecting it from the thumb drive. This affords you a digital-signature-based activation of Windows 10 for your processor/motherboard combination. Next, you get into your boot setup and boot from your Windows 10 thumb drive to do the clean install.
You don't need to save CD-ROMS or serial number cards or anything in your sock drawer anymore. You don't even need to remember where you kept the thumb drive -- you can always re-download the Windows 10 installer to a fresh thumb drive. So if your system is compromised and you want to start over, you can reinstall Windows anytime you want to.
So I guess there is some value to the telemetry sent to Redmond, WA. Cool!
Scotty knew enough to start with an archaic computer he had never seen before (Ach! The keyboard, yes!) and sketch out the process for generating transparent aluminum, so I would consider him considerably further skilled than a technician.
Maybe we should think of this fictional character as the 23rd century counterpart to a naval officer (Scotty had officer rank, we wasn't a Chief Warrant Officer or such rank) in charge of Engineering on a nuclear aircraft carrier? Who probably has at least an undergrad degree in Nuclear Engineering?
As to getting battered by a shovel, didn't locomotives lose their shovels decades ago when they switched from coal-fired steam to oil-fired Diesel?
'Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!'
'[whispering] Germans?'
'Forget it, he's rolling.'
in his long-lost short story Le Telephon-Photographique
http://www.theonion.com/articl...
"Rudeness becomes ubiquitous, as the device's infuriating notification-chimes invade every corner of public life," McGraw said. "When the ethically bereft begin transmitting images obtained under questionable circumstances, espionage becomes so prevalent as to threaten the integrity of the French populace."
(or at least the Onion was on to this 13 year ago)
OK, the Soccer Moms where you live like to take corners in a four-wheel power slide, carve donuts in the soccer field when their kid loses, and go drinking until 2 AM after a game. Who knew?
There is this saying as old as the auto industry that the most critical safety component of any car is "the nut behind the wheel."
This crash safety tests are fine, and IIHS is trying to make them more fine, but they publish interesting (if not macabre) data on vehicle death rates that don't strictly correlate with the crash-test ratings.
Cheap subcompacts favored by first-time new-car buyers do poorly and two-seat sports cars do even worse. You would think that pickup trucks would do well on account of their bulk and mass, but they don't do as well as you would think, although IIHS found that many aren't that great in their crash tests. Boring sedans do OK and Japanese boring sedans do even better, but nothing tops minivans for not killing people.
These real-world results seem to correlate with driver demographics, with cautious Soccer Moms in their minivans being very safe and other people, not as much.
What drove this home, to excuse a pun, is the time you could buy a Corolla with either a Chevy Nova badge or a Toyota. The Chevy was significantly more dangerous even though it came from the same Fremont, CA plant that later got turned into the Tesla factory. Do you suppose that snobs paying the couple-hundred dollar premium to get a proper Toyota drive more carefully?
where the bug-exploit reveal is "cleaner" if it comes from a volunteer donor rather from a humanities grad student or homeless person who gets money from Plasma-R-Us?
As with code "smells", the response to the Seattle study suffers from study "smells."
It seems the people want a certain outcome, namely, that increasing the minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of working persons trying to get by. I mean, who can be against that apart from some mean-spirited Conservatives and clueless Libertarians, no?
But isn't science supposed to be about where the data lead instead about what we want the outcome to be? This study isn't what we want to hear so oh noes, the study has flaws and it doesn't agree with all of those other studies.
I am sure this study has flaws along with every other data-collection and interpretation effort in the social sciences. My concern is with the confirmation-bias-y tone of the parent post, like the Wild West prospector who sees a few yellow sparkles and starts hopping up in down, "There's goooolllld in them thar heels!"
How I spend my time is my own personal concern.
How you spend your time is your free-will choice.
Whether comments are meritorious is the domain of Moderation.
Yes, I do not know what "we are actually talking about." That is why I am offering analogies posed as questions. It seems that very few people commenting here "get" what the Java Module System does. How does this make you feel?
You are telling me that "versioning" in ActiveX is not a "thing"?
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-...
Could they be talking about something like COM and ActiveX? COM and ActiveX modules are nothing more than DLLs, but they are registered into the Registry and have versioning and All That Jazz. There is something called the Global Assembly Cache (GAC -- is this a Klingon delicacy?) in the .NET universe doing the same thing?
By that reasoning and way of bending the English language to their will, LD_LIBRARY_PATH is not a "modularity system" for loading a DLL whereas finding a COM or ActiveX module through its GUID is such a thing?
For all the shade thrown on Microsoft and Windows and especially the Registry, there is a certain brittleness to requiring PATH be set to find your DLL module and a certain robustness to doing regsvr32 MyModule.ocx and then being able to load MyModule by supplying its global identifier? Whether or not people believe the COM/ActiveX way is better; I am trying to say it is different from simply having MyModule.dll on the PATH, and I am asking this is the correct interpretation of what Java 9 is trying to do?
And if COM/ActiveX registration is what Java 9 is trying to do, then there are indeed other systems on the planet with this feature, namely Windows API/Visual C++ / Windows .NET/C#? Not that there is anything wrong with that!
Is that $8500 per peak watt or after taking into account the "capacity factor" that the wind blows, on average, a certain percent of the time?