Or it gets hit by a bit of space debris and breaks apart, spewing a cloud of radioactive dust over the planet as it de-orbits and burns up in the atmosphere.
With what could possibly go wrong, I'd actually be a little surprised if we were so stupid to have broken the treaties and have put nukes in space. Rods from God? Maybe. Lasers? Possibly. But nukes? Probably not.
They likely handle peak loads on the order of millions of complex GIS operations per minute to maintain traffic data.
Did it ever occur to you that a whole lot of us don't care about that and don't want that? If I want traffic conditions, I'll go find traffic conditions. But when I want a map, I want a map, and I don't want all that overhead and spying.
Right now google is tying that in more and more. It now is guessing where my home and work are to "better plan my commute", and wants me to give it the exact addresses. It wants to store commonly taken routes to better suggest how I get places.
I want zero of that 99% of the time. What I want is a fucking map.
Right now I really hate popping open google maps because it takes forever as it loads all of the stuff to advertise to me. As soon as I open it, half the fucking screen is covered with shit I'm not interested in. I don't want your paid advertisements for places in my hometown. I know it better than you. And the places I spend my money don't advertise with google.
Somewhat ironically, earlier today I got pissed at this stupid bar of icons for restaurants, cafes, gas stations, etc. across the top of google maps just a few hours before this story popped up, and I dug through settings to see if I could figure out how to disable it. I was unsuccessful.
So yeah, do what google maps did, but drop the creepy icons for my home and work, drop all the advertisements, and just produce a fast, streamlined mapping and directions app. Do that, and I'll even donate some money and time to the project.
WTF? Have we forgotten everything that's ever been done before, and just decided to recreate it with a new name, make a social tie-in, add some spying and data analytics to make money, and then run a marketing campaign for it?
And an often missed issue is even if someone is correct in saying, "AI won't replace my job before I retire.", they are ignoring that entire industries are going to be replaced by AI. If their job is tied to one of those, it may not be replaced by AI, but rather destroyed by it. And even if AI doesn't destroy your industry, it might shake it well enough that a lot of companies go out of business, and that could include the one you work for in your "safe from AI" job.
I analyze and design a lot of systems and processes for my organization to make it more efficient and reduce errors and issues. I'm well aware that AI can't do this currently, but I'm also aware that a) it will be able to at some point in the near future, and b) most of what I'm doing is to make up for the shit work that people who might be replaceable by AI do. And even if my org doesn't go for AI, how will we fare when competing against those who do? Or if we try to be an early adopter, will we crash and burn?
Massive disruption is often a good thing in the long term, but pretty shitty to live through in the short term and aftermath.
So you've never noticed the bridges near you with height/weight limits? Height/weight limits which preclude a very many large trucks?
All bridges have them, and a lot of them won't safely support a semi. Drive off any major road sometime, and you'll see plenty of them. They're not marked "no trucks", but they are definitely "no trucks" given the height/weight limits.
Same here. I got a Dell Precision running Ubuntu and just didn't look back. OSX just has bug after unfixed bug piling up, now persisting across versions. The hardware is stagnant, and other than the case, the MBP is no longer a premium experience. If I'm going to get a mainstream machine, I might as well pay a mainstream price for it.
I'm not sure that it's too low, because this is just servicing O'Hare.
The interwebs tell me that O'Hare hits just shy of 80m passengers per year. Lets say a quarter of the passengers use this, that's 10m. Per day that's about 27,000 passengers. Lets assume that they're concentrated during the roughly 12 daylight hours - that's 2,300 per hour. And since it's listed at 2,000 per direction each hour, and O'Hare passengers are counted coming or going, that puts us around half capacity on average.
Lots of spitballing and areas for argument with these numbers, but upon first glance, it doesn't look too out of whack. The real issue is if it's a success, the popularity goes up, and it needs to expand. Do they have a plan for that?
10 years is far too short a time to declare that an expensive computer is dead
A) That's not really true, because a very large percentage of computers fail before 10 years. B) That's now what's happening anyway. They're saying an OS architecture that's 17 years old, unsupported by the manufacturer, and incompatible with the modern versions of that same OS is not supported. If you've got 10 year old hardware that still works, just install a slightly newer OS on it.
Seriously dude, take your meds. Half what you rambled and shouted here is flat out wrong, and the other half applies to pretty much any modern game, no matter how you get it.
I buy almost exclusively independently developed games through Steam that are DRM free. And while yes, Steam takes it's cut, I wouldn't have found many of those games without Steam, and it makes buying them so easy I'm more likely to impulse buy. And most of them run without Steam running.
The games that require DRM to run do have some serious SAAS issues, but that's not all games, and Steam doesn't handle the DRM a large portion of the time anyway. If you buy any AAA game, odds are that it negotiates the DRM with the publisher on launch, and Steam doesn't have anything to do with it. Steam functions more like an app launcher with a storefront, social network, and analytics than it does a DRM enforcer.
And there's minimal cloud strategy with Steam. If you want to store your save games with Steam, you can. But you can just store them locally and back them up as well.
I think these are two things that people miss when complaining about Musk. For all the legitimate complaints one might have about him, releasing the battery patent so the world could use it was a real commitment to supporting renewable energy and cleaner transportation.
Second, by investing in multiple gigafactories, he's positioning himself to be the sole supplier of batteries for much of automation, despite releasing those patents. Has his cake and eats it too.
I have some serious admiration for the ability to do that. Not a lot of CEOs have the balls to do that and the brains to make it work.
Incorrect, for the most part. The vast majority of atheists are in the camp of "I see no evidence of a god." That's not "I know there isn't.", which is a statement of absolute certainty. Not currently seeing evidence leaves open the possibility of that evidence coming to light, as unlikely as it is.That's the rational position to take.
Agnosticism generally is in the realm of, "I'm not sure if there is or not.", which is very different from "I see no evidence."
There are definitely members of the strong atheist camp which go as far as to say, "I know there isn't.", but that tends to be a minority in my experience. Because to claim that there is no god, you've put yourself in the position of having to prove a negative. From a philosophical standpoint, that's a poor position to take, as it shifts the burden of proof on the defender.
It's still an issue! I have a little media center NUC with a USB wireless keyboard and mouse, and I can't do anything in the BIOS or GRUB with it. If I want to mess with either, I need to drag a wired keyboard out and plug it in.
That's why I lost my Galaxy S4 after three years of service. Got the S7 with wireless charging, in part because I bet I can get quite a few more years out of it with 2 methods to charge it.
The S4 had a replaceable battery, but ripping it apart at least once a day to change it and setting up a battery charge rotation turned out to be a giant pain in the ass.
By what logic would one make the jump from "I don't know" to the supernatural?
That's the fundamental failing of religion. There is no reasonable way to bridge that gap, nor any evidence which would suggest one could.
For example one could believe in some sort of god that made the universe the way it is, laws of nature and all, and didn't really interact with the whole thing afterwards.
One could believe in a lot of things. The issue is whether or not one can justify those beliefs.
Throughout human history "I don't know" has often been answered with "god", but that god of the gaps has steadily gotten smaller as we've gotten wiser. While making that jump is a logical fallacy to begin with, given the history of that being about the worst method to explain everything in the universe, it should be abundantly clear at this point in history that it's a very stupid choice for one to make.
"I don't know." is fine. It's the correct answer a lot of the time. People just need to be brave enough to accept it.
Why is there something rather than nothing? I don't know. And I'm ok with that.
Except removing anonymity is not really necessary with semi-sensible moderation, white/black lists, and content visibility policies./. is a really good example of this. Not perfect, but browse at +2 and it's a fairly decent place. Want to dive into the madness of the AC? Change your post level settings or just click "x hidden comments".
I've got in my back pocket a couple of similar but I think better moderation schemes which include shadowbans, reputation, and friends-of-friends and foes-of-friends tweaks. Not likely that I'll ever be in a place to implement them, but if I am, I'll try them out.
Straight up/down votes with no metamoderation are the scourge of the internet. Combined with no sockpuppet policies, you end up with absolutely abusive forums. (Cough reddit, cough.) Websites on the internet are only the wild west if the owners of forums want it to be. Anyone who wants some civility can make that happen, and it doesn't require giving up anonymity.
I've worked in both a small shop (under 20 developers) and a decently large organization (more than 400 employees) although outside the dev shop. I had positive agile experiences in both places.
What I've found is that agile works given a few conditions:
1) The organization actually adopts agile, and embraces it. 2) The owners of the development both understand agile and have the political power to enforce it. 3) The devs understand agile and can thrive within it.
When all that happens, and I know that's not often, Agile can shine. I've seen it, and I've really appreciated it. I get how it can go terribly wrong, but it can and does work, if the environment allows it.
Except that the government already did that. The telecoms pocketed billions and never built out the service in a lot of places.
Rather than attacking the profitability of Amtrak, which tends to struggle in the best of times, perhaps the good senator could work on forcing the telcom industry to finish their work. They don't seem to hurt for profit, and our investment in them should both be repaid and include the interest on that investment.
And there is no "solar might be bad" for those that live near extremely large installations, it is and will be.
If it is, you've got proof. Show me the research.
I took the time to show you some research that found that the amount of heavy metals leached from panels are negligible unless you crush them and continuously run an acidic solution over them. Your trite response of "omg, acid rain" is stupid, and I assume you know that.
If you've got evidence, present it. Otherwise you're the irrational one. That is pretty much the definition of believing something without evidence.
I'd rather live near a nuke plant and far, far away from any large grid scale solar installations. I don't want to deal with any of the heavy metals that would leach off of the panels, no matter how slowly they leach.
When I pointed out how that seems to be an irrational fear that isn't backed up by data, you've now changed to:
Just like "who cares about CO2 levels 100 years from now" came back to bite us in the ass, "who cares about heavy metals in water reservoirs 100 years from now" will also bite the poor bastards living at the time right in the ass.
So you've gone from "solar might be bad for me, I don't want to live near it" to "solar might be bad for someone some time in the future so I don't want to live near it". Do you understand how stupid your argument against solar is in that context?
If you're going to irrationally hate solar, go for it. But don't try to rationalize it. The facts don't match up with your fear.
That depends. Do mosquitos die? Because if the answer is yes, I'm thinking that I might want to experience that. Because even if the fish are dead and I can't catch any, it's going to make fishing a lot more pleasant.
In addition, logging does a ton of soil disruption, and there's a lot of carbon sequestered in the soil. As the soil is churned as new plant growth happens, a lot of carbon gets released. If the plants that re-grow are trees, over a century they'll suck a lot of that back out of the air. But if they aren't they won't ever have the biomass available to store that carbon.
So it's not only the carbon used to harvest, ship and process the trees, it's the soil carbon released too. Not a lot of people really grasp how much carbon isn't in the air, and is instead in water, soil, and rock.
Slashdot Mirror
Or it gets hit by a bit of space debris and breaks apart, spewing a cloud of radioactive dust over the planet as it de-orbits and burns up in the atmosphere.
With what could possibly go wrong, I'd actually be a little surprised if we were so stupid to have broken the treaties and have put nukes in space. Rods from God? Maybe. Lasers? Possibly. But nukes? Probably not.
They likely handle peak loads on the order of millions of complex GIS operations per minute to maintain traffic data.
Did it ever occur to you that a whole lot of us don't care about that and don't want that? If I want traffic conditions, I'll go find traffic conditions. But when I want a map, I want a map, and I don't want all that overhead and spying.
Right now google is tying that in more and more. It now is guessing where my home and work are to "better plan my commute", and wants me to give it the exact addresses. It wants to store commonly taken routes to better suggest how I get places.
I want zero of that 99% of the time. What I want is a fucking map.
And it wouldn't be hard to do either!
Right now I really hate popping open google maps because it takes forever as it loads all of the stuff to advertise to me. As soon as I open it, half the fucking screen is covered with shit I'm not interested in. I don't want your paid advertisements for places in my hometown. I know it better than you. And the places I spend my money don't advertise with google.
Somewhat ironically, earlier today I got pissed at this stupid bar of icons for restaurants, cafes, gas stations, etc. across the top of google maps just a few hours before this story popped up, and I dug through settings to see if I could figure out how to disable it. I was unsuccessful.
So yeah, do what google maps did, but drop the creepy icons for my home and work, drop all the advertisements, and just produce a fast, streamlined mapping and directions app. Do that, and I'll even donate some money and time to the project.
So they're reinventing an RSS feed?
WTF? Have we forgotten everything that's ever been done before, and just decided to recreate it with a new name, make a social tie-in, add some spying and data analytics to make money, and then run a marketing campaign for it?
Seriously. WTF?
I concur.
And an often missed issue is even if someone is correct in saying, "AI won't replace my job before I retire.", they are ignoring that entire industries are going to be replaced by AI. If their job is tied to one of those, it may not be replaced by AI, but rather destroyed by it. And even if AI doesn't destroy your industry, it might shake it well enough that a lot of companies go out of business, and that could include the one you work for in your "safe from AI" job.
I analyze and design a lot of systems and processes for my organization to make it more efficient and reduce errors and issues. I'm well aware that AI can't do this currently, but I'm also aware that a) it will be able to at some point in the near future, and b) most of what I'm doing is to make up for the shit work that people who might be replaceable by AI do. And even if my org doesn't go for AI, how will we fare when competing against those who do? Or if we try to be an early adopter, will we crash and burn?
Massive disruption is often a good thing in the long term, but pretty shitty to live through in the short term and aftermath.
So you've never noticed the bridges near you with height/weight limits? Height/weight limits which preclude a very many large trucks?
All bridges have them, and a lot of them won't safely support a semi. Drive off any major road sometime, and you'll see plenty of them. They're not marked "no trucks", but they are definitely "no trucks" given the height/weight limits.
Wait....a 128gb solid state drive and 8gb of ram isn't good enough for you? What kind of power user are you? /s
Same here. I got a Dell Precision running Ubuntu and just didn't look back. OSX just has bug after unfixed bug piling up, now persisting across versions. The hardware is stagnant, and other than the case, the MBP is no longer a premium experience. If I'm going to get a mainstream machine, I might as well pay a mainstream price for it.
I'm not sure that it's too low, because this is just servicing O'Hare.
The interwebs tell me that O'Hare hits just shy of 80m passengers per year. Lets say a quarter of the passengers use this, that's 10m. Per day that's about 27,000 passengers. Lets assume that they're concentrated during the roughly 12 daylight hours - that's 2,300 per hour. And since it's listed at 2,000 per direction each hour, and O'Hare passengers are counted coming or going, that puts us around half capacity on average.
Lots of spitballing and areas for argument with these numbers, but upon first glance, it doesn't look too out of whack. The real issue is if it's a success, the popularity goes up, and it needs to expand. Do they have a plan for that?
10 years is far too short a time to declare that an expensive computer is dead
A) That's not really true, because a very large percentage of computers fail before 10 years. B) That's now what's happening anyway. They're saying an OS architecture that's 17 years old, unsupported by the manufacturer, and incompatible with the modern versions of that same OS is not supported. If you've got 10 year old hardware that still works, just install a slightly newer OS on it.
Seriously dude, take your meds. Half what you rambled and shouted here is flat out wrong, and the other half applies to pretty much any modern game, no matter how you get it.
I buy almost exclusively independently developed games through Steam that are DRM free. And while yes, Steam takes it's cut, I wouldn't have found many of those games without Steam, and it makes buying them so easy I'm more likely to impulse buy. And most of them run without Steam running.
The games that require DRM to run do have some serious SAAS issues, but that's not all games, and Steam doesn't handle the DRM a large portion of the time anyway. If you buy any AAA game, odds are that it negotiates the DRM with the publisher on launch, and Steam doesn't have anything to do with it. Steam functions more like an app launcher with a storefront, social network, and analytics than it does a DRM enforcer.
And there's minimal cloud strategy with Steam. If you want to store your save games with Steam, you can. But you can just store them locally and back them up as well.
Have you even used Steam?
If you can't run the latest Steam client....
Except you can. You just an OS that's not 17 years old to run it on.
I don't feel it's unresonable to ask people to update the OS on their home entertainment PC once a decade. Do you really feel that it is?
I think these are two things that people miss when complaining about Musk. For all the legitimate complaints one might have about him, releasing the battery patent so the world could use it was a real commitment to supporting renewable energy and cleaner transportation.
Second, by investing in multiple gigafactories, he's positioning himself to be the sole supplier of batteries for much of automation, despite releasing those patents. Has his cake and eats it too.
I have some serious admiration for the ability to do that. Not a lot of CEOs have the balls to do that and the brains to make it work.
Incorrect, for the most part. The vast majority of atheists are in the camp of "I see no evidence of a god." That's not "I know there isn't.", which is a statement of absolute certainty. Not currently seeing evidence leaves open the possibility of that evidence coming to light, as unlikely as it is.That's the rational position to take.
Agnosticism generally is in the realm of, "I'm not sure if there is or not.", which is very different from "I see no evidence."
There are definitely members of the strong atheist camp which go as far as to say, "I know there isn't.", but that tends to be a minority in my experience. Because to claim that there is no god, you've put yourself in the position of having to prove a negative. From a philosophical standpoint, that's a poor position to take, as it shifts the burden of proof on the defender.
It's still an issue! I have a little media center NUC with a USB wireless keyboard and mouse, and I can't do anything in the BIOS or GRUB with it. If I want to mess with either, I need to drag a wired keyboard out and plug it in.
That's why I lost my Galaxy S4 after three years of service. Got the S7 with wireless charging, in part because I bet I can get quite a few more years out of it with 2 methods to charge it.
The S4 had a replaceable battery, but ripping it apart at least once a day to change it and setting up a battery charge rotation turned out to be a giant pain in the ass.
By what logic would one make the jump from "I don't know" to the supernatural?
That's the fundamental failing of religion. There is no reasonable way to bridge that gap, nor any evidence which would suggest one could.
For example one could believe in some sort of god that made the universe the way it is, laws of nature and all, and didn't really interact with the whole thing afterwards.
One could believe in a lot of things. The issue is whether or not one can justify those beliefs.
Throughout human history "I don't know" has often been answered with "god", but that god of the gaps has steadily gotten smaller as we've gotten wiser. While making that jump is a logical fallacy to begin with, given the history of that being about the worst method to explain everything in the universe, it should be abundantly clear at this point in history that it's a very stupid choice for one to make.
"I don't know." is fine. It's the correct answer a lot of the time. People just need to be brave enough to accept it.
Why is there something rather than nothing? I don't know. And I'm ok with that.
Except removing anonymity is not really necessary with semi-sensible moderation, white/black lists, and content visibility policies. /. is a really good example of this. Not perfect, but browse at +2 and it's a fairly decent place. Want to dive into the madness of the AC? Change your post level settings or just click "x hidden comments".
I've got in my back pocket a couple of similar but I think better moderation schemes which include shadowbans, reputation, and friends-of-friends and foes-of-friends tweaks. Not likely that I'll ever be in a place to implement them, but if I am, I'll try them out.
Straight up/down votes with no metamoderation are the scourge of the internet. Combined with no sockpuppet policies, you end up with absolutely abusive forums. (Cough reddit, cough.) Websites on the internet are only the wild west if the owners of forums want it to be. Anyone who wants some civility can make that happen, and it doesn't require giving up anonymity.
I've worked in both a small shop (under 20 developers) and a decently large organization (more than 400 employees) although outside the dev shop. I had positive agile experiences in both places.
What I've found is that agile works given a few conditions:
1) The organization actually adopts agile, and embraces it.
2) The owners of the development both understand agile and have the political power to enforce it.
3) The devs understand agile and can thrive within it.
When all that happens, and I know that's not often, Agile can shine. I've seen it, and I've really appreciated it. I get how it can go terribly wrong, but it can and does work, if the environment allows it.
Except that the government already did that. The telecoms pocketed billions and never built out the service in a lot of places.
Rather than attacking the profitability of Amtrak, which tends to struggle in the best of times, perhaps the good senator could work on forcing the telcom industry to finish their work. They don't seem to hurt for profit, and our investment in them should both be repaid and include the interest on that investment.
And there is no "solar might be bad" for those that live near extremely large installations, it is and will be.
If it is, you've got proof. Show me the research.
I took the time to show you some research that found that the amount of heavy metals leached from panels are negligible unless you crush them and continuously run an acidic solution over them. Your trite response of "omg, acid rain" is stupid, and I assume you know that.
If you've got evidence, present it. Otherwise you're the irrational one. That is pretty much the definition of believing something without evidence.
You said:
I'd rather live near a nuke plant and far, far away from any large grid scale solar installations. I don't want to deal with any of the heavy metals that would leach off of the panels, no matter how slowly they leach.
When I pointed out how that seems to be an irrational fear that isn't backed up by data, you've now changed to:
Just like "who cares about CO2 levels 100 years from now" came back to bite us in the ass, "who cares about heavy metals in water reservoirs 100 years from now" will also bite the poor bastards living at the time right in the ass.
So you've gone from "solar might be bad for me, I don't want to live near it" to "solar might be bad for someone some time in the future so I don't want to live near it". Do you understand how stupid your argument against solar is in that context?
If you're going to irrationally hate solar, go for it. But don't try to rationalize it. The facts don't match up with your fear.
That depends. Do mosquitos die? Because if the answer is yes, I'm thinking that I might want to experience that. Because even if the fish are dead and I can't catch any, it's going to make fishing a lot more pleasant.
Not at night!
In addition, logging does a ton of soil disruption, and there's a lot of carbon sequestered in the soil. As the soil is churned as new plant growth happens, a lot of carbon gets released. If the plants that re-grow are trees, over a century they'll suck a lot of that back out of the air. But if they aren't they won't ever have the biomass available to store that carbon.
So it's not only the carbon used to harvest, ship and process the trees, it's the soil carbon released too. Not a lot of people really grasp how much carbon isn't in the air, and is instead in water, soil, and rock.