Regarding your reason 1, sure, inside a company. But capitalism suggests that some upstart company that isn't a total screwup should come along and eat the other's lunch. But that doesn't seem to happen. Wonder why?
I always thought flat roofs were common in hot climates because you could. Throw up some beams, plywood, tiles and you're done. In places where you get snow, flat roofs are just asking to collapse so you have to monkey around with rafters and clinging to an inclined surface to install those tiles or shingles, and making sure they don't slide off. Plus all the wasted space in the attic.
It seems like installing solar panels effectively lets you wrap your monthly electric bill into your mortgage (along with a net profit for you). Mortgages are low interest loans because they're secured by the physical property. That could easily reduce the month-to-month expenses for someone who has enough money to buy a house.
If you're actually poor, don't buy a house, never mind building a new one. Except in distorted markets, renting is cheaper.
Solar energy is a conservative dream. Problem is, it's not a capitalist dream because a) most countries missed the boat on panel manufacturing to China and b) constant consumption is more profitable than efficiency and self-sufficiency.
I have a paper saved somewhere that looked at the financial decision making spreadsheets for a good portion of the fortune 500 and came to the conclusion that spreadsheets were so hard to debug, and consequently there are so many errors in all of those studied, that companies' financial decisions are effectively random.
Other research finds that higher paid executives are *less* likely to perform well.
It seems odd that competition wouldn't weed out this kind of incompetence.
I think I'm even more cynical than you are. It sounds like a company founded to cash in on the latest bubble (it's got ".ai" in the name after all). They just happen to have stumbled onto something that should have been blindingly obvious from the beginning.
Professional photographers shoot in whatever the market demands. Virtually all do shoot in full colour, digital. Some shots are converted into black and white, because people like that. Some photographers still shoot film sometimes, even black and white film, because there's a market for it.
I didn't say anywhere that everyone should adopt the latest and greatest. Nice try with the straw man though.
If you feel that you must watch movies, buy paintings or have your events photographed as someone else dictates, well, go ahead, but don't pretend there's something "right" about that.
While helping a friend buy a Kindle I noticed those prices went up 30% this fall too... in the US. I think there was something about a trade war with China?
The idea is not to focus on job titles, but "what skills they have,"
Do you ever get the feeling that most business administration is making random decisions, and anything that's slightly better than random, no matter how obvious, is a revolutionary concept?
Particularly for a title as meaningless as "data scientist."
You do see motion blur in real life. If an object moves in a scene and your eyes don't track it, that object blurs. If your whole body is moving, whatever your eyes aren't tracking blurs. If your eyes do track a moving object, generally your brain censors the actual part where your eye is moving so you don't puke.
Motion blur certainly isn't a copy of what the eye and brain do, but it might be just enough of a psychological cue to reduce some of the surreality.
No no, burning at the stake is what Catholics do to *other* people.
Catholics collectively, in the form of the Catholic church, should simply be sued for appropriate damages and anyone involved with decision making power should be imprisoned. Same for the church of Scientology.
Yes. The fairings use the airfoil chute approach and apparently can steer themselves. But the fairings are a lot smaller, lighter, and more aerodynamic than the boosters. I'm a bit surprised SpaceX can't get them to hit the net. Paraglider spot landings take a bit of practice, but they're not that hard. Maybe next time the US navy decommissions a carrier SpaceX should pick it up.
At least some Facebook employees are convinced that Facebook spies on ambient sound using smartphone microphones, so they don't trust face to face either.
Methinks Charlie Osborne is in the pocket of the ad industry.
Hey, heard about this cool new technology? It's pretty much unrelated to my point that your browsing experience sucks because my corporate overlords have to ask for permission before they spy on you.
Precisely. If you're annoyed by consent requests, take their advice and "leave the site immediately." If enough people do that then sites will adapt or lose to competitors who don't engage in assholery.
It would be a seriously awesome trick to land a rocket on a barge or landing pad under a parachute. You have to pull the chute fairly far up so it has time to slow you down, but that makes you subject to wind and other uncertainties. You could use a steerable, airfoil-style parachute, but you can't steer them unless they're moving forward, so now you've got your rocket coming down to land with forward velocity. Theoretically you could have it pull off a perfect flare like a paraglider doing a no-step landing but... that would be impressive.
Launches on the US west coast are from Vandenberg launch complex. It's right on the ocean. No launch can be over populated areas (until it's really high) so launches from Vandenberg have to be pretty close to polar orbits, launching to the south.
A blue screen isn't a graceful failure. Saving all your work before rebooting would be.
When you're engineering a complex system you know that failures are inevitable, so you design for them. An engine on a plane catching fire (on very rare occasions or in exceptional circumstances) and not hurting anyone is definitely working as designed. Ask a pilot.
Not a time of flight calculation. Light is too fast and the fob's response time is too variable. Delay detection would work though. You send out the signal and you know to fairly good precision (but much less than required for TOF) how long the key fob takes to respond. You would probably build the fob so it sets up its response, waits a particular amount of time, then fires it off.
Relays introduce an unavoidable delay. If you detect the delay, don't unlock the doors.
You don't have to completely block the signal, you just have to attenuate it enough. Those little fobs are super low power, and the signal already has to go through at least your front door.
(d-e) Sigh. Everything's gotta have its own server. No way you could encrypt and decrypt messages on a phone and send them over e-mail/jabber/4chan/whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
Regarding your reason 1, sure, inside a company. But capitalism suggests that some upstart company that isn't a total screwup should come along and eat the other's lunch. But that doesn't seem to happen. Wonder why?
Reason 2: there is is.
I always thought flat roofs were common in hot climates because you could. Throw up some beams, plywood, tiles and you're done. In places where you get snow, flat roofs are just asking to collapse so you have to monkey around with rafters and clinging to an inclined surface to install those tiles or shingles, and making sure they don't slide off. Plus all the wasted space in the attic.
Last time I was in Scotland, hill walking north of Glasgow, there were home solar installations. In Scotland.
It seems like installing solar panels effectively lets you wrap your monthly electric bill into your mortgage (along with a net profit for you). Mortgages are low interest loans because they're secured by the physical property. That could easily reduce the month-to-month expenses for someone who has enough money to buy a house.
If you're actually poor, don't buy a house, never mind building a new one. Except in distorted markets, renting is cheaper.
Solar energy is a conservative dream. Problem is, it's not a capitalist dream because a) most countries missed the boat on panel manufacturing to China and b) constant consumption is more profitable than efficiency and self-sufficiency.
I have a paper saved somewhere that looked at the financial decision making spreadsheets for a good portion of the fortune 500 and came to the conclusion that spreadsheets were so hard to debug, and consequently there are so many errors in all of those studied, that companies' financial decisions are effectively random.
Other research finds that higher paid executives are *less* likely to perform well.
It seems odd that competition wouldn't weed out this kind of incompetence.
I think I'm even more cynical than you are. It sounds like a company founded to cash in on the latest bubble (it's got ".ai" in the name after all). They just happen to have stumbled onto something that should have been blindingly obvious from the beginning.
Professional photographers shoot in whatever the market demands. Virtually all do shoot in full colour, digital. Some shots are converted into black and white, because people like that. Some photographers still shoot film sometimes, even black and white film, because there's a market for it.
I didn't say anywhere that everyone should adopt the latest and greatest. Nice try with the straw man though.
If you feel that you must watch movies, buy paintings or have your events photographed as someone else dictates, well, go ahead, but don't pretend there's something "right" about that.
While helping a friend buy a Kindle I noticed those prices went up 30% this fall too... in the US. I think there was something about a trade war with China?
The idea is not to focus on job titles, but "what skills they have,"
Do you ever get the feeling that most business administration is making random decisions, and anything that's slightly better than random, no matter how obvious, is a revolutionary concept?
Particularly for a title as meaningless as "data scientist."
You do see motion blur in real life. If an object moves in a scene and your eyes don't track it, that object blurs. If your whole body is moving, whatever your eyes aren't tracking blurs. If your eyes do track a moving object, generally your brain censors the actual part where your eye is moving so you don't puke.
Motion blur certainly isn't a copy of what the eye and brain do, but it might be just enough of a psychological cue to reduce some of the surreality.
Yes. We should. We tell every other producer what we'd like and they make it. Artists are somehow special because they're artists.
Except they're not. A small number of rich people decide what is great art and everyone else tries to mimic it.
No no, burning at the stake is what Catholics do to *other* people.
Catholics collectively, in the form of the Catholic church, should simply be sued for appropriate damages and anyone involved with decision making power should be imprisoned. Same for the church of Scientology.
And Emily Blunt did lots of yoga.
Yes. The fairings use the airfoil chute approach and apparently can steer themselves. But the fairings are a lot smaller, lighter, and more aerodynamic than the boosters. I'm a bit surprised SpaceX can't get them to hit the net. Paraglider spot landings take a bit of practice, but they're not that hard. Maybe next time the US navy decommissions a carrier SpaceX should pick it up.
At least some Facebook employees are convinced that Facebook spies on ambient sound using smartphone microphones, so they don't trust face to face either.
If you worked for Facebook, the world's second largest spy agency, would you post on a web site that Facebook sucks?
Methinks Charlie Osborne is in the pocket of the ad industry.
Hey, heard about this cool new technology? It's pretty much unrelated to my point that your browsing experience sucks because my corporate overlords have to ask for permission before they spy on you.
Precisely. If you're annoyed by consent requests, take their advice and "leave the site immediately." If enough people do that then sites will adapt or lose to competitors who don't engage in assholery.
It would be a seriously awesome trick to land a rocket on a barge or landing pad under a parachute. You have to pull the chute fairly far up so it has time to slow you down, but that makes you subject to wind and other uncertainties. You could use a steerable, airfoil-style parachute, but you can't steer them unless they're moving forward, so now you've got your rocket coming down to land with forward velocity. Theoretically you could have it pull off a perfect flare like a paraglider doing a no-step landing but... that would be impressive.
Launches on the US west coast are from Vandenberg launch complex. It's right on the ocean. No launch can be over populated areas (until it's really high) so launches from Vandenberg have to be pretty close to polar orbits, launching to the south.
Map:
https://www.google.ca/maps/pla...
A blue screen isn't a graceful failure. Saving all your work before rebooting would be.
When you're engineering a complex system you know that failures are inevitable, so you design for them. An engine on a plane catching fire (on very rare occasions or in exceptional circumstances) and not hurting anyone is definitely working as designed. Ask a pilot.
Not a time of flight calculation. Light is too fast and the fob's response time is too variable. Delay detection would work though. You send out the signal and you know to fairly good precision (but much less than required for TOF) how long the key fob takes to respond. You would probably build the fob so it sets up its response, waits a particular amount of time, then fires it off.
Relays introduce an unavoidable delay. If you detect the delay, don't unlock the doors.
You don't have to completely block the signal, you just have to attenuate it enough. Those little fobs are super low power, and the signal already has to go through at least your front door.
(a-c) Sounds like a business opportunity.
(d-e) Sigh. Everything's gotta have its own server. No way you could encrypt and decrypt messages on a phone and send them over e-mail/jabber/4chan/whatever.