Just keep conveniently forgetting that his "political rival" happens to be a dictator that exemplifies all the bad connotations of that word.
What makes you think the other guy isn't? The West has a long history of supporting the 'other guy' because they can't be worse than what they have... only to discover that actually, they are.
Mao, for example, would have been wiped out by the Chinese Nationalists if the US government hadn't prevented them from doing so because they felt the Nationalists were corrupt.
the idea is that you won't HAVE a bug if it's in the hardware
I can tell you've never developed graphics hardware or drivers... I'm sure the people I know who do that will be glad to know that they won't have to work around chip bugs anymore.
There is a big "Security Warning" dialog box. What should Java do more?
It could tell you that allowing it to run would give it access to all the files on your computer. I had no idea that was the case, but then I disabled Java in my web browsers long ago.
Because plots are copyrightable, the actual functionality of code is not.
Since when can plots be copyrighted? Most of the publishing industry would vanish overnight if that was the case.
Are you claiming that if I was to take the Windows source, rewrite each function myself so it no longer contains Windows code, and then release it, Microsoft wouldn't have a zillion lawyers outside my house the next day?
If you were to assume that books and computer software are the same, you might be dumb?
So what's the difference, in legal terms? Why would my Harvey Popper novel be hit with a multi-million dollar law suit but the equivalent action be perfectly OK if it was a piece of software?
Can't imagine American authorities would be too happy about accepting an Iranian ship sailing into New York with a crew of marines on board manning deck mounted rapid fire machine guns.
What do you think they're going to do? Invade America with a few marines and machineguns?
In any case, the weapons would be dismounted before docking and then locked in a safe by customs. If the crew remove them from the safe while in dock, then you throw them in jail or shoot them.
A friend of a friend has a.50 caliber machinegun on his yacht, which apparently has proven effective in discouraging pirates while sailing around Asia. He says it's not an issue where his friend travels so long as it's locked away while in port.
And considering that most countries allow friendly navy ships in ports, there's no reason at all why they should be unable to deal with visiting cargo ships with far less dangerous weaponry.
Pirates only do what they do because they are poor and are just trying to feed their families.
I'm assuming you're a serious lefty bleeding-heart and not just a troll. Apologies if you were just trying to satirise said bleeding-hearts.
The pirates do what they do because they know the good guys won't shoot back, so it's an easy to way to get rich; there was a news story a while back about some Somali businessman who had invested his money in piracy because it was so profitable. He sure wasn't doing to 'feed his family'.
The same thing that's moral about putting offenders in jail for a while instead of killing them, despite the probabilities of backsliding.
So you're proposing that cargo ship crews are going to board a boat full of pirates with assault rifles and perform a citizen's arrest so they can take them to jail?
Somehow that sounds rather less likely to work than just shooting them with a minigun from a safe distance.
It could be several seconds, or even tens of seconds, between clear shots. So: you wound one pirate. The others start firing RPGs and AK-47s. These do not need to be accurate.
That's why you forget sniping and just install a few 7.62mm miniguns or.50-caliber machineguns.
I know it sounds crazy, but some people have moral hangups about killing people unnecessarily.
If you don't shoot the pirates then you may get away, but they'll attack the next ship. If you do kill them then they're no longer a problem, and it will help to discourage the others.
What's 'moral' about running away and letting these people attack someone else?
Clearly the experts on a subject cannot be trusted to be impartial about it, so we should discount their opinion and listen to the ones who know less.
In science, by which I mean actual science and not what passes for it today, being an 'expert' and five bucks will buy you a cup of coffee. What matters is not whether you're an 'expert' but the results of your experiments, which anyone can reproduce and study.
If the 'experts' claim that gravity makes apples fly up in the air from the ground to the branches of trees, then anyone can do an experiment to verify or disprove that. So why should we care what they think?
Whose idea is it that their intelligence earns them rights? Do you think we can enslave the retarded or perform experiments on the comatose due to their lack of intelligence?
You should probably look up the history of the left and eugenics: a century ago they'd have no problem with openly stating that retarded humans should be prevented from breeding if not simply killed.
Now they're promoting 'rights for animals' on the basis of 'intelligence', the primary result of which is to imply that the less intelligent humans should not have those rights.
Male dolphins will separate a female from her pod and deny her food or sleep until she lets them mate with her.
They kidnap females so they can rape them.
Yup, they sure act human-like.
Don't worry, once Dolphins have 'human rights', any dolphin which rapes another dolphin will be sent to dolphin jail, and any dolphin which kills another dolphin will be sent to the electric chair.
I just never understood these arguments.. computers are fast. Really fast. They can process FAR more input than even the best driver can. They can be looking 360 degrees around the car at all times, with optical sensors that are better than eyes, infrared that works in the dark, radar on top of that..
Flying is much easier for a computer to do than driving, because there are rarely any other planes within a few miles of you and no kids to jump out from behind a parked blimp.
Yet when the autopilot can't manage to fly, it dumps the problem onto the pilots to deal with, and then they often crash. The Air France plane that went down in the Atlantic last year, for example, appears to have been receiving bad speed data from its sensors and then told the pilots 'oh crap, I don't know what to do', soon after which it went splat in the sea.
If computers can't even fly planes properly, why would you expect them to be able to drive cars? How do we magically get 100% reliable communications and sensors on cars when we can't get them on multi-million dollar aircraft with massively more restrictive maintenance regimes?
Why not? Damn near every computer in the world is capable of communicating with the others through TCP. When you go out onto any road in the world red light means stop, green light means go and the red light is always on top of or to the left of the green light. We have global standards, they work quite nicely.
Standards in inter-car communication will only happen if they're forced by law. And computers are generally replaced every 2-5 years, whereas cars are generally replaced every 10-15 years with a fair few still on the roads after 30.
So if you demanded that all new cars were fitted with inter-car communication tomorrow, then in 10 years the majority of cars would have it, and you'd still crash the first time someone pulled out in front of you in their 1950s Cadillac.
This is roughly equivalent to someone leaving their signal light on. IE: not a serious concern and easily designed around.
Ah, so when there's a stationary car in front of you that's telling you it's actually driving at 50mph, you're giong to crash into the back of them? I guess that's a plan.
But like I said, cars are perfectly capable of communicating with each other in order to resolve conflicting interests and they can react far faster then any human could ever hope to.
Ha-ha-ha... yes, because every car on the road will actually be communicating and everyone will be using the same standard and none of them will be sending bad data and there'll be nothing on the road other than magic communicating cars.
The real reason this won't happen is because the car manufacturers will be sued to hell every time a super-safe automatic car kills someone.
Having recently purchased a car, I can't tell you how many really nicely equipped, horribly underpowered tin boxes I got to drive.
We recently bought a new car. It's considered a small economy car and has the smallest, least powerful engine of the cars we looked at, but it's more powerful than my supercharged stationwagon from the 1980s, and a third more powerful than the two-seat sports car I used to drive... however it weighs about 20% more than the stationwagon and 50% more than the sports car.
The problem is not so much lack of power, but massive bloat.
Slashdot Mirror
Just keep conveniently forgetting that his "political rival" happens to be a dictator that exemplifies all the bad connotations of that word.
What makes you think the other guy isn't? The West has a long history of supporting the 'other guy' because they can't be worse than what they have... only to discover that actually, they are.
Mao, for example, would have been wiped out by the Chinese Nationalists if the US government hadn't prevented them from doing so because they felt the Nationalists were corrupt.
The "Intel graphics are slow" meme is dead.
For anyone who likes their games to run at 30fps at 1024x768 with low graphics settings. The rest of us find that kind of slow actually.
If you're buying high-end software, why are you expecting to play it on low-end hardware?
What's the point of supporting DX11 if the game is unplayable?
My laptop's graphics card supports DX10, but if I enable the DX10 engine in any game I own that has one then the frame rate halves. So why bother?
the idea is that you won't HAVE a bug if it's in the hardware
I can tell you've never developed graphics hardware or drivers... I'm sure the people I know who do that will be glad to know that they won't have to work around chip bugs anymore.
There is a big "Security Warning" dialog box. What should Java do more?
It could tell you that allowing it to run would give it access to all the files on your computer. I had no idea that was the case, but then I disabled Java in my web browsers long ago.
Because plots are copyrightable, the actual functionality of code is not.
Since when can plots be copyrighted? Most of the publishing industry would vanish overnight if that was the case.
Are you claiming that if I was to take the Windows source, rewrite each function myself so it no longer contains Windows code, and then release it, Microsoft wouldn't have a zillion lawyers outside my house the next day?
If you were to assume that books and computer software are the same, you might be dumb?
So what's the difference, in legal terms? Why would my Harvey Popper novel be hit with a multi-million dollar law suit but the equivalent action be perfectly OK if it was a piece of software?
I don't know how you feel about software patents but to suggest that a program with all the original code is a derivative work is a bit of a stretch.
If I was to take a Harry Potter novel and rewrite each paragraph but keep the same story, I'm guessing I'd be in trouble?
Assuming company A is the copyright holder to a particular piece of software. Couldn't they license it out commercially and under the GPL.
Yes. But they have to actually hold the copyright... if others contributed and didn't assign copyright to them then they can't really claim to own it.
Can't imagine American authorities would be too happy about accepting an Iranian ship sailing into New York with a crew of marines on board manning deck mounted rapid fire machine guns.
What do you think they're going to do? Invade America with a few marines and machineguns?
In any case, the weapons would be dismounted before docking and then locked in a safe by customs. If the crew remove them from the safe while in dock, then you throw them in jail or shoot them.
A friend of a friend has a .50 caliber machinegun on his yacht, which apparently has proven effective in discouraging pirates while sailing around Asia. He says it's not an issue where his friend travels so long as it's locked away while in port.
And considering that most countries allow friendly navy ships in ports, there's no reason at all why they should be unable to deal with visiting cargo ships with far less dangerous weaponry.
Pirates only do what they do because they are poor and are just trying to feed their families.
I'm assuming you're a serious lefty bleeding-heart and not just a troll. Apologies if you were just trying to satirise said bleeding-hearts.
The pirates do what they do because they know the good guys won't shoot back, so it's an easy to way to get rich; there was a news story a while back about some Somali businessman who had invested his money in piracy because it was so profitable. He sure wasn't doing to 'feed his family'.
The same thing that's moral about putting offenders in jail for a while instead of killing them, despite the probabilities of backsliding.
So you're proposing that cargo ship crews are going to board a boat full of pirates with assault rifles and perform a citizen's arrest so they can take them to jail?
Somehow that sounds rather less likely to work than just shooting them with a minigun from a safe distance.
It could be several seconds, or even tens of seconds, between clear shots. So: you wound one pirate. The others start firing RPGs and AK-47s. These do not need to be accurate.
That's why you forget sniping and just install a few 7.62mm miniguns or .50-caliber machineguns.
I know it sounds crazy, but some people have moral hangups about killing people unnecessarily.
If you don't shoot the pirates then you may get away, but they'll attack the next ship. If you do kill them then they're no longer a problem, and it will help to discourage the others.
What's 'moral' about running away and letting these people attack someone else?
Clearly the experts on a subject cannot be trusted to be impartial about it, so we should discount their opinion and listen to the ones who know less.
In science, by which I mean actual science and not what passes for it today, being an 'expert' and five bucks will buy you a cup of coffee. What matters is not whether you're an 'expert' but the results of your experiments, which anyone can reproduce and study.
If the 'experts' claim that gravity makes apples fly up in the air from the ground to the branches of trees, then anyone can do an experiment to verify or disprove that. So why should we care what they think?
What the hell, what's NOT a human? A rabbit?
Rabbits and hamsters 'have distinct personalities' and 'can think about the future'. But that doesn't mean I'd give them the vote and the car keys.
Whose idea is it that their intelligence earns them rights? Do you think we can enslave the retarded or perform experiments on the comatose due to their lack of intelligence?
You should probably look up the history of the left and eugenics: a century ago they'd have no problem with openly stating that retarded humans should be prevented from breeding if not simply killed.
Now they're promoting 'rights for animals' on the basis of 'intelligence', the primary result of which is to imply that the less intelligent humans should not have those rights.
Otherwise, we'll have community organizers signing up dolphins to vote in elections and lobbying for tax dollars to fund flipper-accessible housing.
They'll be pissed once the government starts demanding they fill out tax returns and pay income tax.
'Are you sure you only caught 3,765 fish in 2020, Mr Flipper?'
Male dolphins will separate a female from her pod and deny her food or sleep until she lets them mate with her.
They kidnap females so they can rape them.
Yup, they sure act human-like.
Don't worry, once Dolphins have 'human rights', any dolphin which rapes another dolphin will be sent to dolphin jail, and any dolphin which kills another dolphin will be sent to the electric chair.
I'm not demanding it instantly. The entire thread has been about far off future tech and where it might lead. Don't strawman me bro.
Why would anyone want to pay extra for something which might, if they're lucky, be of some use around the time they scrap the car?
Radar.
If you have radar, why do you want magic communicating cars?
I just never understood these arguments.. computers are fast. Really fast. They can process FAR more input than even the best driver can. They can be looking 360 degrees around the car at all times, with optical sensors that are better than eyes, infrared that works in the dark, radar on top of that..
Flying is much easier for a computer to do than driving, because there are rarely any other planes within a few miles of you and no kids to jump out from behind a parked blimp.
Yet when the autopilot can't manage to fly, it dumps the problem onto the pilots to deal with, and then they often crash. The Air France plane that went down in the Atlantic last year, for example, appears to have been receiving bad speed data from its sensors and then told the pilots 'oh crap, I don't know what to do', soon after which it went splat in the sea.
If computers can't even fly planes properly, why would you expect them to be able to drive cars? How do we magically get 100% reliable communications and sensors on cars when we can't get them on multi-million dollar aircraft with massively more restrictive maintenance regimes?
Why not? Damn near every computer in the world is capable of communicating with the others through TCP. When you go out onto any road in the world red light means stop, green light means go and the red light is always on top of or to the left of the green light. We have global standards, they work quite nicely.
Standards in inter-car communication will only happen if they're forced by law. And computers are generally replaced every 2-5 years, whereas cars are generally replaced every 10-15 years with a fair few still on the roads after 30.
So if you demanded that all new cars were fitted with inter-car communication tomorrow, then in 10 years the majority of cars would have it, and you'd still crash the first time someone pulled out in front of you in their 1950s Cadillac.
This is roughly equivalent to someone leaving their signal light on. IE: not a serious concern and easily designed around.
Ah, so when there's a stationary car in front of you that's telling you it's actually driving at 50mph, you're giong to crash into the back of them? I guess that's a plan.
But like I said, cars are perfectly capable of communicating with each other in order to resolve conflicting interests and they can react far faster then any human could ever hope to.
Ha-ha-ha... yes, because every car on the road will actually be communicating and everyone will be using the same standard and none of them will be sending bad data and there'll be nothing on the road other than magic communicating cars.
The real reason this won't happen is because the car manufacturers will be sued to hell every time a super-safe automatic car kills someone.
Having recently purchased a car, I can't tell you how many really nicely equipped, horribly underpowered tin boxes I got to drive.
We recently bought a new car. It's considered a small economy car and has the smallest, least powerful engine of the cars we looked at, but it's more powerful than my supercharged stationwagon from the 1980s, and a third more powerful than the two-seat sports car I used to drive... however it weighs about 20% more than the stationwagon and 50% more than the sports car.
The problem is not so much lack of power, but massive bloat.