Some 100 or even 50 years ago, the majority of people especially in rural areas were able to make informed assumptions as to tomorrows weather by looking up into the evening sky. Today, a growing number of people will not even associate "sky" if you mention "clouds" to them.
While it is rather unlikely that this is anywhere near NY Times' Greg Milner's point (proudly not having RTFA), here's my take: the problem is neither GPS nor common sense or the lack thereof, but our growing dependency on tech, while at the same time we neglect basically all of the knowledge and experience it took to get us to where we are. To put it another way: if individuals wanting to go somewhere close by end up in Croatia, where will humankind end up once it completely subjects itself to todays automated emergency response systems, high speed trading algorithms and real time stock market analyses and all the rest of the things we can no longer live without? A person might be silly, but it'll yet have to turn out if we as a species are silly....
Oh come on, of course failed and failing states breed instability and of course the US is actively destabilizing regions all over the world. Rubio knows that, we all know that unless we don't want to hear it, and the brainwash you quote is just sickening. "[N]o longer legal and has theoretically stopped"? You might not be a liar, but you are certainly naive.
Don't get me wrong, it would be nice if we could still see the world the way you do, but it takes an awful lot of ignoring facts to do so.
For "some reason", the word 'typewriter' can be typed using keys from the top row only on a QWERTY keyboard. Thing is, changing keyboard layout standards is probably even more difficult than agreeing on spelling reforms. Old dogs, new tricks and all that...
3. (computing, of software) Excessively overloaded with features (...)
...
In my book, both apply:-P
Without the rollback and backup stuff you mention, the frickin thing is still huge.
Don't get me wrong, but just the other day I was reminiscing with a friend about the times when our PCs ran at 4,77 MHz and how we dreamt of what those machines could do if they ran at 40 or even 400 MHz. Today, those things run at >2 GHz speeds on several cores (!), and most of the times we still wait and wait and wait... which is the "bloat" I'm talking about. The waiting is in large parts due to -- but not exclusively and not only on Win machines -- modern OS architecture and feature bloat. Why MS is still pushing every last feature to every last machine instead of giving users a way of opting in and out of certain aspects of the OS only a small part of the user base will ever use is beyond me (as are most of their decisions lately). Yet, you have to click through several pages of privacy settings when installing Win10, unless you click "MS knows best, don't bother me with what it collects and phones home". What's wrong with a "Chose the components you wish to install now and add others later" option, so that for example desktop users can skip all the shiny new touch and tablet kinda stuff?!
You almost got me up to that statement. I did a VM install of Win10 over the weekend; it failed the first time, because I thought that a fixed 16GB for the test partition would do. The dynamic container is at 24.738.004.992 bytes now after the Threshold 2 update. Nothing else was installed - just Win10 + updates.
Give it a try, grab the iso and fire up a VM. No need for a Windows key, you can skip entering it just like the activation.
Threshold 2, which like all updates is not optional, as we all know, took >1 hour on a 4 core system with a decent SSD and ~2,5GB RAM for the VM. I wonder what you'd call a "bloated" OS.
4k is cool and all, I get it. Still, why would I want my PC to render 4k at suboptimal frame rates, when I can play at full HD and have the display present me those 1080px in a way no native HD display could do? Really, I want one of those things just for the real estate and the freedom to place more better looking windows where I want and need them, but for gaming at native resolution, I just don't get it.
Countries like Russia and the likes probably don't care much about their population's irrational fears and would much rather present a solution, if only for the "Ha ha!" aspect of it. Instead, they dumped their waste in the seas, creating more risks and, eventually, costs. You reiterate your "just do x" mantra and ignore the fact that short term as well as long term storage is extremely complicated and very expensive if done properly. "Future tech y will solve all problems" is not helpful either. Keep ignoring the fact that we can't even handle crude safely enough not to pollute the environment repeatedly. Radioactivity is not primarily scary, it's a risk that must be dealt with accordingly, and your posts illustrate why this is unlikely to happen, because your "just don't spill it" approach cost "by BP's count, $54 billion in projected total expenses".
Just bury the waste. Well, if it is that easy, why does no country in the world have a permanent solution for their waste? If just burying it is good enough, why does nobody do it? Hint: it's hard to do it safely, given the half life periods involved, since we're talking about 10,000 to 1,000,000 years, and I'd rather not touch those 500 years you mention, because you pulled that number out of a smelly place. Also, the article is talking about the problems arising from handling crude oil. Looks like we can't even handle that safely enough. What makes you think we can handle nuclear waste safely for long periods of time? Just do x and y won't be a problem. I just love that approach. We might discuss nuclear if it weren't for such utter "rational" BS.
Opera [opera.com] which my oldest boy swears is the greatest thing ever (boy is he still pissed they quit using presto)
Don't recommend it. It all went down after they abandoned presto. Compared to the Opera I loved, the chromium version, to quote Dr. Cooper, sucks the big one. They even started rolling out silent updates, and the last one broke the bookmarks (they are gone -- you need to install a 3rd party extension to access your old bookmarks). Alienating their user base this way, they'll be gone sooner rather than later.
That's why there's the WHO link to put that into perspective, in case you didn't notice. All sources state that numbers are hard to come by and why. The OP stated "cool down, Fukushima blew up and nobody died!" and that is just ignorant. Never mind the source.
I already said that "whether the estimate is correct or not, it will take decades" because of "the long latency period for some cancers. WHO said in 2005: "The total number of deaths already attributable to Chernobyl or expected in the future over the lifetime of emergency workers and local residents in the most contaminated areas is estimated to be about 4000." Again, the numbers do not matter, or that they only look at the "most contaminated areas" in their estimate. All I was saying was that it is too soon to talk about the death toll, because it will take decades of science to say anything meaningful. The OP argument was like "I locked up 10 people in an airtight room and they were all ok when I checked on them a minute later."
While it is true that people are not dropping dead in the thousands due to Fukushima, I'll leave this to consider:
Estimate of Consequences from the Fukushima Disaster, Jirina Vitazkova and Errico Cazzoli, Nordic PSA Conference (nuclear utilities in Finland and Sweden), September 2011 (emphasis added): The results with respect to health effects show that within 80 years the number of victims of the Fukushima disaster can be expected to be AT LEAST in the range of 10,000 to 300,000 people in terms of deaths due to infectious diseases, cardiovascular diseases, genetic diseases, and cancers; and about the same number of sicknesses/syndromes needing prolonged hospitalization and health care are expected to occur. This estimates accounts only for the population already living at the time of the accident. A comparable number of excess deaths and sicknesses may be expected in the population that will be born in the period. In addition to these, more than 100,000 excess still-births and a comparable or larger number of excess children born with genetic deformations (e.g. Down syndrome) are expected [...]
Whether the estimate is correct or not, it will take decades before it's safe to say "a nuclear reactor that didn't kill anyone". The actual outcome will also largely depend on how well the Japanese authorities will handle the cleanup. Judge for yourself whether they've done a good job so far.
Excuse me. You are from the country that "is home to the first advanced civilizations in Europe and is considered the birthplace of Western civilization" (Wikipedia), and the best you can come up with is a Telly Savalas quote? Now, where to begin...
Also, in some countries it's illegal to harvest power from ambient electromagnetic radiation, like GB as it says in the comments section here, in order to prevent people from leeching power off of power lines, antennas of radio stations and what have you. While that doesn't stop you from charging your AA batteries for free, you might have a hard time selling gear that relies on harvested power in these countries.
While you are right, what puzzles me here is that they name corruption as the cause of problems. Usually, even if you identify corruption as a problem, you do not call it corruption, nowhere and never (and it's not as if Russia is the only country where corruption is rampant). While I wonder what exactly hides behind this news tidbit -- and we all know that the message itself is likely very far from communicating what is actually happening or intended -- I assume that even bringing up corruption in this context might be a message in itself. Then again, what do I know... someone enlighten us (Edja Snegskowsky, help us out!).
... or with a renewable energy sector that is among the most innovative and successful worldwide according to Wikipedia.
In the country where they are doing this, renewables are taken off the grid on a regular basis because of overproduction and power is regularly sold for extremely low or even negative prices (I kid you not) to European neighbors. So, instead of not producing power by stopping wind turbines on windy days or losing money selling / giving away excess power, it could be put to good use even if you chose to "burn" it in a not very efficient conversion process. Some interesting numbers here. That said, I'm off to RTFA.
I really do like the nerdiness of your comment attacking the anonymous messenger along with your reluctance to discuss the message. Anti-Americanism an histrionics aside, it is by now a sane business decision to avoid US products and services in certain markets -- as long as you are willing to accept the fact that the US is not the world.
I was wondering about this from the first time the drone delivery thing came up. People will steal everything that is unprotected, and sometimes even things that are heavily protected. Why do Amazon et. al. think it will be any different with delivery drones? Once those drones are ubiquitous, shooting them down just to hunt down some nice surprise presents will become a new sport.
let the market squabble it out for an extended period of time
Thing is, the definition of 'market' has changed considerably since the time I was taught what a market is ("The market is the place where supply and demand meet"). Go check for yourself and apply the 'old' definition to whatever markets you are most familiar with, and you'll probably find they rarely work that way anymore, and many don't mess much with supply and demand, but are -- as you state -- playing for time.
Curiously enough, the page's fortune tells me: "'Free markets select for winning solutions.' -- Eric S. Raymond" They certainly used to, but do they still -- or rather: how free are they?
Slashdot Mirror
Let me guess what that kinda gear was used for ... pr0n?
Don't get me wrong,I just can't think of anything else with a ROI that would justify such expenses back in the days ...
Some 100 or even 50 years ago, the majority of people especially in rural areas were able to make informed assumptions as to tomorrows weather by looking up into the evening sky. Today, a growing number of people will not even associate "sky" if you mention "clouds" to them.
While it is rather unlikely that this is anywhere near NY Times' Greg Milner's point (proudly not having RTFA), here's my take: the problem is neither GPS nor common sense or the lack thereof, but our growing dependency on tech, while at the same time we neglect basically all of the knowledge and experience it took to get us to where we are. To put it another way: if individuals wanting to go somewhere close by end up in Croatia, where will humankind end up once it completely subjects itself to todays automated emergency response systems, high speed trading algorithms and real time stock market analyses and all the rest of the things we can no longer live without? A person might be silly, but it'll yet have to turn out if we as a species are silly ... .
Oh come on, of course failed and failing states breed instability and of course the US is actively destabilizing regions all over the world. Rubio knows that, we all know that unless we don't want to hear it, and the brainwash you quote is just sickening. "[N]o longer legal and has theoretically stopped"? You might not be a liar, but you are certainly naive.
Don't get me wrong, it would be nice if we could still see the world the way you do, but it takes an awful lot of ignoring facts to do so.
For "some reason", the word 'typewriter' can be typed using keys from the top row only on a QWERTY keyboard. Thing is, changing keyboard layout standards is probably even more difficult than agreeing on spelling reforms. Old dogs, new tricks and all that ...
I haven't used the Win10 install much, but just to nitpick:
bloated
...
3. (computing, of software) Excessively overloaded with features (...)
In my book, both apply :-P
Without the rollback and backup stuff you mention, the frickin thing is still huge.
Don't get me wrong, but just the other day I was reminiscing with a friend about the times when our PCs ran at 4,77 MHz and how we dreamt of what those machines could do if they ran at 40 or even 400 MHz. Today, those things run at >2 GHz speeds on several cores (!), and most of the times we still wait and wait and wait ... which is the "bloat" I'm talking about. The waiting is in large parts due to -- but not exclusively and not only on Win machines -- modern OS architecture and feature bloat. Why MS is still pushing every last feature to every last machine instead of giving users a way of opting in and out of certain aspects of the OS only a small part of the user base will ever use is beyond me (as are most of their decisions lately). Yet, you have to click through several pages of privacy settings when installing Win10, unless you click "MS knows best, don't bother me with what it collects and phones home". What's wrong with a "Chose the components you wish to install now and add others later" option, so that for example desktop users can skip all the shiny new touch and tablet kinda stuff?!
End rant.
You almost got me up to that statement. I did a VM install of Win10 over the weekend; it failed the first time, because I thought that a fixed 16GB for the test partition would do. The dynamic container is at 24.738.004.992 bytes now after the Threshold 2 update. Nothing else was installed - just Win10 + updates.
Give it a try, grab the iso and fire up a VM. No need for a Windows key, you can skip entering it just like the activation.
Threshold 2, which like all updates is not optional, as we all know, took >1 hour on a 4 core system with a decent SSD and ~2,5GB RAM for the VM. I wonder what you'd call a "bloated" OS.
after a quick google search for SCADA selfies I very much agree.
Exactly, and there's also the fixed layout ebook format Apple introduced on top of EPUB2 which EPUB3 standardizes. I've done PDF to fixed layout ebook conversions that work like a charm and look exactly like the print / PDF version -- given that your device supports fxl ebooks, of course. There are several pdf2fxl ebook / EPUB3 conversion services and tools. I like this one because it has a free (watermarked) demo so you can check if your project converts well.
> is there something Amazon did
You mean apart from being Amazon?
4k is cool and all, I get it. Still, why would I want my PC to render 4k at suboptimal frame rates, when I can play at full HD and have the display present me those 1080px in a way no native HD display could do? Really, I want one of those things just for the real estate and the freedom to place more better looking windows where I want and need them, but for gaming at native resolution, I just don't get it.
Countries like Russia and the likes probably don't care much about their population's irrational fears and would much rather present a solution, if only for the "Ha ha!" aspect of it. Instead, they dumped their waste in the seas, creating more risks and, eventually, costs. You reiterate your "just do x" mantra and ignore the fact that short term as well as long term storage is extremely complicated and very expensive if done properly. "Future tech y will solve all problems" is not helpful either. Keep ignoring the fact that we can't even handle crude safely enough not to pollute the environment repeatedly. Radioactivity is not primarily scary, it's a risk that must be dealt with accordingly, and your posts illustrate why this is unlikely to happen, because your "just don't spill it" approach cost "by BP's count, $54 billion in projected total expenses".
Just bury the waste. Well, if it is that easy, why does no country in the world have a permanent solution for their waste? If just burying it is good enough, why does nobody do it? Hint: it's hard to do it safely, given the half life periods involved, since we're talking about 10,000 to 1,000,000 years, and I'd rather not touch those 500 years you mention, because you pulled that number out of a smelly place. Also, the article is talking about the problems arising from handling crude oil. Looks like we can't even handle that safely enough. What makes you think we can handle nuclear waste safely for long periods of time? Just do x and y won't be a problem. I just love that approach. We might discuss nuclear if it weren't for such utter "rational" BS.
Come on. We're talking about terrorists using FB, Google and Twitter. Notice something?
Don't recommend it. It all went down after they abandoned presto. Compared to the Opera I loved, the chromium version, to quote Dr. Cooper, sucks the big one. They even started rolling out silent updates, and the last one broke the bookmarks (they are gone -- you need to install a 3rd party extension to access your old bookmarks). Alienating their user base this way, they'll be gone sooner rather than later.
That's why there's the WHO link to put that into perspective, in case you didn't notice. All sources state that numbers are hard to come by and why. The OP stated "cool down, Fukushima blew up and nobody died!" and that is just ignorant. Never mind the source.
I already said that "whether the estimate is correct or not, it will take decades" because of "the long latency period for some cancers. WHO said in 2005: "The total number of deaths already attributable to Chernobyl or expected in the future over the lifetime of emergency workers and local residents in the most contaminated areas is estimated to be about 4000." Again, the numbers do not matter, or that they only look at the "most contaminated areas" in their estimate. All I was saying was that it is too soon to talk about the death toll, because it will take decades of science to say anything meaningful. The OP argument was like "I locked up 10 people in an airtight room and they were all ok when I checked on them a minute later."
While it is true that people are not dropping dead in the thousands due to Fukushima, I'll leave this to consider:
Whether the estimate is correct or not, it will take decades before it's safe to say "a nuclear reactor that didn't kill anyone". The actual outcome will also largely depend on how well the Japanese authorities will handle the cleanup. Judge for yourself whether they've done a good job so far.
Excuse me. You are from the country that "is home to the first advanced civilizations in Europe and is considered the birthplace of Western civilization" (Wikipedia), and the best you can come up with is a Telly Savalas quote? Now, where to begin ...
Then again, Kojak was kinda cool back then.
Also, in some countries it's illegal to harvest power from ambient electromagnetic radiation, like GB as it says in the comments section here, in order to prevent people from leeching power off of power lines, antennas of radio stations and what have you. While that doesn't stop you from charging your AA batteries for free, you might have a hard time selling gear that relies on harvested power in these countries.
While you are right, what puzzles me here is that they name corruption as the cause of problems. Usually, even if you identify corruption as a problem, you do not call it corruption, nowhere and never (and it's not as if Russia is the only country where corruption is rampant). While I wonder what exactly hides behind this news tidbit -- and we all know that the message itself is likely very far from communicating what is actually happening or intended -- I assume that even bringing up corruption in this context might be a message in itself. Then again, what do I know ... someone enlighten us (Edja Snegskowsky, help us out!).
... or with a renewable energy sector that is among the most innovative and successful worldwide according to Wikipedia.
In the country where they are doing this, renewables are taken off the grid on a regular basis because of overproduction and power is regularly sold for extremely low or even negative prices (I kid you not) to European neighbors. So, instead of not producing power by stopping wind turbines on windy days or losing money selling / giving away excess power, it could be put to good use even if you chose to "burn" it in a not very efficient conversion process. Some interesting numbers here. That said, I'm off to RTFA.
I really do like the nerdiness of your comment attacking the anonymous messenger along with your reluctance to discuss the message. Anti-Americanism an histrionics aside, it is by now a sane business decision to avoid US products and services in certain markets -- as long as you are willing to accept the fact that the US is not the world.
I was wondering about this from the first time the drone delivery thing came up. People will steal everything that is unprotected, and sometimes even things that are heavily protected. Why do Amazon et. al. think it will be any different with delivery drones? Once those drones are ubiquitous, shooting them down just to hunt down some nice surprise presents will become a new sport.
Thing is, the definition of 'market' has changed considerably since the time I was taught what a market is ("The market is the place where supply and demand meet"). Go check for yourself and apply the 'old' definition to whatever markets you are most familiar with, and you'll probably find they rarely work that way anymore, and many don't mess much with supply and demand, but are -- as you state -- playing for time.
Curiously enough, the page's fortune tells me: "'Free markets select for winning solutions.' -- Eric S. Raymond" They certainly used to, but do they still -- or rather: how free are they?
At least, it gives a whole new meaning to the term "old news" -- and to "dupe" as well, FWIW.