Did you even open the web site? It has three rows of seating and it is advertised for 5000 lb towing. The slashdot blurb even says as much.
What's weird is the picture looks like what we call a 5-door sedan. Looks like a Prius too. But you can put stuff under the seats so maybe that's why it's a SUV.
In real world usage a fast dual core almost always is faster than a slow quad core. When loading a web page you'll often be waiting for that one pig javascript script to finish. The quad core would need evenly splitted tasks to catch up or surpass the dual core.
Your desktop is running hundreds of threads right now.. 99% of them using 0.1% CPU combined. Things haven't changed much in 15 years : going dual core (formerly dual CPU) gives you a tremendous advantage, especially for not crumbling down when a single thread or process uses 100% CPU. After that it's a wash. And linux still runs well on a fast single core desktop (Athlon 64, Pentium M, Celeron 430)
I'm sure some programs will have trouble but you underrate the backwards compatibility, you can run Windows 1 programs in Windows 7 32bit - and even then it's worth trying on 32bit Windows 8.1 and 10.
The one program not very forward looking I know of is Myst, as the installer dumps Quicktime 2 shit in c:\windows\sytem. Still okay with Window 95 if I remember correctly, certainly not with XP.
Isn't what the settings in the "Windows Update" control panel are for? Have "important updates" install automatically, and don't tick the "recommended updates" check box.
Crap comes in through HTTP unharmed anyway. Malware is happy to run with "only" user execution context, because it can run arbitrary code and has access to all your data, even that network mounted rw share. I suppose there will eventually be some update blocker software, or run some tool like Autopatcher with a blacklist or whitelist if that's possible? or some WSUS or similar server (that only costs like $1000 lol, unless warez Server 2008 R2 just works)
Maybe the roads are poor or non existent and not that straight. It could be a tiring three hour drive in a guzzling 4WD, crossing mud, fallen trees etc. whereas a small plane hops to a yellow grass airfield and that's it.
In the first world we can't afford to hire a pilot, but we can do a one hour drive at constant speed on an amazingly flat road, or in some case take a train (100km can be rather quick and cheap). We have some things amazingly cheaper than in most of Africa (water, transportation, internet)
In my urban and peripheral urban area, the vast majority of people with cars seem to have them parked outside (in inner town you have underground parking lots. But not much room for traffic) In suburb-like areas, you have a mix of parked outside, and in the very small property but outside. Some residential places have unpowered garages : contiguous sheds to store a car and/or crap, thus with no electrical power. I'm sure there's many thousands homes with a garage but for the masses that are working class and/or rent there's not much of an option.
Bringing an electrical bicycle or its battery inside would be much easier.
The biggest threat would be to have three billion people that travel by plane, take skiing vacations, heat at 25C in winter and cool at 20C in summer, a new cell phone every year, lots of cars and so on.
I don't think transmitting losses are even that big of a problem : the capital costs for power transmission are staggering, and then there are some recurring maintenance. If you want to do that on a grand scale, you quickly run into $400 billion in power lines and grid upgrades or a figure like that. The lines have problems of public opposition and discontent land owners too. In fact given that renewables increase reliance on the grid, their "decentralized" character is a fictive and rhetorical notion, unless you're fully off grid or have specific circumstances.
If the power grid did cost 10x less I believe it would be worth it to build it up and live with the losses.
1950s/1960s space program also had the mundane utility of developing technology for nuclear weapons delivery. That is a solved problem now. You have that little East-Asian country as much impoverished as an African one that is working on that to troll you.
You run the risk of creating technology that is of no use anywhere else (space life support) and importantly creating new "lost technology" of which Saturn V is a good example. 30 years after SLS is shut down and the supply chain gone it will cost yet another $100 billion to start again.
I'm sure you could spend $100 billions in other ways, as in $5 billion a year for 20 years in research/industrial. Nuclear fusion, ocean monitoring, even exploring wild life. Hell ITER was bogged down in funding but it's cheap enough that France could have paid for it all on its own (we wasted as much on a nuclear missile program, and on over-engineered over-sized fission reactors)
Helium 3 is useless on the short term anyway. We're headed for commercial exploitation of deuterium + tritium around year 2050, with a huge reactor and perhaps that technology will power a small majority of earthly needs 30 years later. Helium 3 is like a hundred times harder. So once we can assemble a helium 3 reactor in LEO with a thousand launches and crush a thousand ton of lunar rock to fuel it, we can go anywhere using the moon as an infinite fuel station:)
Very cool idea but that likely needs many servicing trips like the ISS. Nucular reactor to move all that dead weight and perhaps mining raw moon ice for the water (if launching dozens tons from the moon makes any sense). Back of the envelope this costs twice as much as the Mars program.
Chronical humiliation, or harassment is a thing. It is perhaps a "crime" worth recognizing because it just makes someone's life crappy for no good reason. It makes no sense to live in such prosperity and wealth and to have a crappy sad life.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you even open the web site? It has three rows of seating and it is advertised for 5000 lb towing. The slashdot blurb even says as much.
What's weird is the picture looks like what we call a 5-door sedan. Looks like a Prius too. But you can put stuff under the seats so maybe that's why it's a SUV.
How well does it work without an iTunes account, only the SIM card? Just a question.
In real world usage a fast dual core almost always is faster than a slow quad core.
When loading a web page you'll often be waiting for that one pig javascript script to finish.
The quad core would need evenly splitted tasks to catch up or surpass the dual core.
Your desktop is running hundreds of threads right now.. 99% of them using 0.1% CPU combined.
Things haven't changed much in 15 years : going dual core (formerly dual CPU) gives you a tremendous advantage, especially for not crumbling down when a single thread or process uses 100% CPU. After that it's a wash. And linux still runs well on a fast single core desktop (Athlon 64, Pentium M, Celeron 430)
I'm sure some programs will have trouble but you underrate the backwards compatibility, you can run Windows 1 programs in Windows 7 32bit - and even then it's worth trying on 32bit Windows 8.1 and 10.
The one program not very forward looking I know of is Myst, as the installer dumps Quicktime 2 shit in c:\windows\sytem. Still okay with Window 95 if I remember correctly, certainly not with XP.
I prefer to use a computer where it is safe to view porn sites.
You can get owned by a html mail or an advertisment on a trusted website.
Isn't what the settings in the "Windows Update" control panel are for? Have "important updates" install automatically, and don't tick the "recommended updates" check box.
Crap comes in through HTTP unharmed anyway. Malware is happy to run with "only" user execution context, because it can run arbitrary code and has access to all your data, even that network mounted rw share.
I suppose there will eventually be some update blocker software, or run some tool like Autopatcher with a blacklist or whitelist if that's possible? or some WSUS or similar server (that only costs like $1000 lol, unless warez Server 2008 R2 just works)
Agreed. Use the "flamebait" mod, kids.
Maybe the roads are poor or non existent and not that straight. It could be a tiring three hour drive in a guzzling 4WD, crossing mud, fallen trees etc. whereas a small plane hops to a yellow grass airfield and that's it.
In the first world we can't afford to hire a pilot, but we can do a one hour drive at constant speed on an amazingly flat road, or in some case take a train (100km can be rather quick and cheap). We have some things amazingly cheaper than in most of Africa (water, transportation, internet)
In my urban and peripheral urban area, the vast majority of people with cars seem to have them parked outside (in inner town you have underground parking lots. But not much room for traffic)
In suburb-like areas, you have a mix of parked outside, and in the very small property but outside.
Some residential places have unpowered garages : contiguous sheds to store a car and/or crap, thus with no electrical power.
I'm sure there's many thousands homes with a garage but for the masses that are working class and/or rent there's not much of an option.
Bringing an electrical bicycle or its battery inside would be much easier.
An electric car is likely to have 4-wheel-drive and high torque, too :)
They hurt the eyes and wild life. I hope something will replace them with better spectrum.
The biggest threat would be to have three billion people that travel by plane, take skiing vacations, heat at 25C in winter and cool at 20C in summer, a new cell phone every year, lots of cars and so on.
I don't think transmitting losses are even that big of a problem : the capital costs for power transmission are staggering, and then there are some recurring maintenance.
If you want to do that on a grand scale, you quickly run into $400 billion in power lines and grid upgrades or a figure like that. The lines have problems of public opposition and discontent land owners too.
In fact given that renewables increase reliance on the grid, their "decentralized" character is a fictive and rhetorical notion, unless you're fully off grid or have specific circumstances.
If the power grid did cost 10x less I believe it would be worth it to build it up and live with the losses.
How it is "commercial" crew if the government pays for it and is the only customer?
What do you want next, "private" aircraft carrier?
Forgot this one
$ ping6 google.com
connect: Network is unreachable
$ ping6 ip6-localhost
PING ip6-localhost(ip6-localhost) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from ip6-localhost: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.028 ms
64 bytes from ip6-localhost: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.034 ms
64 bytes from ip6-localhost: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.036 ms
^C
--- ip6-localhost ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1998ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.028/0.032/0.036/0.007 ms
$ ping ip6-localhost
PING ip6-localhost (127.0.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from localhost (127.0.0.1): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.024 ms
64 bytes from localhost (127.0.0.1): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.029 ms
^C
--- ip6-localhost ping statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 999ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.024/0.026/0.029/0.005 ms
1950s/1960s space program also had the mundane utility of developing technology for nuclear weapons delivery. That is a solved problem now. You have that little East-Asian country as much impoverished as an African one that is working on that to troll you.
You run the risk of creating technology that is of no use anywhere else (space life support) and importantly creating new "lost technology" of which Saturn V is a good example. 30 years after SLS is shut down and the supply chain gone it will cost yet another $100 billion to start again.
I'm sure you could spend $100 billions in other ways, as in $5 billion a year for 20 years in research/industrial. Nuclear fusion, ocean monitoring, even exploring wild life.
Hell ITER was bogged down in funding but it's cheap enough that France could have paid for it all on its own (we wasted as much on a nuclear missile program, and on over-engineered over-sized fission reactors)
Helium 3 is useless on the short term anyway. :)
We're headed for commercial exploitation of deuterium + tritium around year 2050, with a huge reactor and perhaps that technology will power a small majority of earthly needs 30 years later. Helium 3 is like a hundred times harder. So once we can assemble a helium 3 reactor in LEO with a thousand launches and crush a thousand ton of lunar rock to fuel it, we can go anywhere using the moon as an infinite fuel station
Very cool idea but that likely needs many servicing trips like the ISS. Nucular reactor to move all that dead weight and perhaps mining raw moon ice for the water (if launching dozens tons from the moon makes any sense).
Back of the envelope this costs twice as much as the Mars program.
Not if you just lose your guilt and fap every day. That's cheaper than US $ 100 billion.
Chronical humiliation, or harassment is a thing. It is perhaps a "crime" worth recognizing because it just makes someone's life crappy for no good reason. It makes no sense to live in such prosperity and wealth and to have a crappy sad life.
$ ping6 localhost
unknown host
LOL. But there is an ip6-localhost. :
Also
$ ping ::1 ::1
ping: unknown host
That makes sense.
Like Apple's PowerPC G3 benchmarks : Twice as fast as a Pentium II * (* except when running software)