The answer is ablation.. You're going to flash-boil some rock, which is going to expand against the main body, and create thrust as it leaves in the other direction at a very good clip.
Given that during the average self-defense gunfight, the defending expends nine rounds, the average defensive shooter would need to reload at least once during a fight. Reloading revolvers is slow.
Note, though, that there’s no parity: A party attempting to kill someone need only get close and fire one round, though they’re probably wise to use two to the chest and one to the head, just to be sure. (However, if someone’s sending trained hit-men, you’re right fucked, so let’s not bother planning for that contingency)
A second, and more interesting point, if I may. Given that you say that “You can have revolvers, bolt action rifles, and pump action shotguns only. That’s plenty for hunting, farmer use, and self defense.” Assume I am properly licensed to carry a gun. Would you be comfortable with me swinging around a pump shotgun in public at all times? (Side note: I wouldn’t be — open carry is just an invitation to get shot first) How about I saw it off so it’s easier to conceal, per my license privileges? Would you be willing to repeal the NFA to achieve this goal?
A more interesting point can be made, however. “Some reasonable restrictions” has been used to justify gun control over and over again. I call this phenomenon “serial compromise”; I’m not sure anyone else has ever put a name to it before. Some of the most well known include:
The National Firearms Act of 1934
The Gun Control Act of 1968
The (ironically named) Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986
The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (better known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban) of 1994
Every single time it’s been described as a “just this once, just this gun” event, but in practice they come along every decade or two. Colion Noir explains it better than I do.
Standards-Essential patents don't. Once you get the world to agree to use your technology exclusively, you generally don't get to decide who can have nice things any more, or your product isn't a standard any more. Typically, as part of the give-and-take of turning your patented technology into a standard, you must commit to licensing your technology in a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory manner -- you don't get to play kingmaker. That's what you give up to earn scads of business.
Last time I flew, the douche-canoe in front of me tried to unjam his seat from the vertical and locked position.
You probably know where this is going, but the thing jamming his seat was my femurs. Until I shouted for a stewardess, he didn’t stop, and I had badly bruised knees while helping my uncle pack his shit for an interstate move.
Of course, I started with “Ow!” And “Sir, that’s my legs, would you - ow, fuck! - please stop - dammit! - banging on - ouch! - the seat?
Nope. Between two and five minutes of - you know, that probably constituted battery, in hindsight. It’d certainly get pled down, but getting the entitled fucker arrested and out of the seat in front of me would have been worth it all by itself.
The problem was that those “gobs of channels no one needs” from the aughties were essentially dominated by what would come to be known on Steam as the “zero effort asset flip”. For the cost of a hundred and fifty channels of bullshit attempts at micro targeting, we probably could have had ten or fifteen channels of solid gold. Except for one little problem
Every hour of TV is really forty minutes of content, and twenty minutes of advertising. If you spend your budget on fifteen gold-plated channels, you’ve just cut your other revenue stream by 90%. You literally can not run enough ads in an hour to make up for that loss. Unlike Steam, there was no policy on “game shaped objects” or, I suppose, “cable network shaped objects” to fall back upon.
The desire for unbelievable profit margins did not help us here. The profit motive didn’t motivate competition and quality, it motivated the garden channel, the crochet channel, the kitten channel, and reality TV.
Remember how Steve Jobs described the 30-pin Dock Connector as having served them well for a decade, but that Lightning was the flexible, digital, software-defined connector for the next decade? This will make six years, which isn't too bad, but I'll be annoyed about all my Lightning speaker-docks. (Not too annoyed, though - they were all bought super-cheap.)
Amusingly, both of Apple’s proprietary charging standards have lasted longer than said mandate.
USB-C is better for all applications? Go find me a locking USB-C port. I’ll wait. No? Hm. Perhaps DockPort may be better if you need it. (USB alternate mode lets you put DisplayPort signaling down a USB cable; DockPort lets you put USB signaling down a DisplayPort cable. Both let you send both data-streams simultaneously.)
I’m inclined to give you that in most applications, it may be competitive with the best, but by mandating ports, you also have to use it in all the rest of the use cases. This means you may be stuck using an inferior connector. Sometimes, it won’t be fit for purpose, but will be crowbarred in there anyway. Other times, it causes stranded assets. Remember the shit-show that was micro-USB–3.0? Presumably it was designed in that godawful way to satisfy the micro-USB charging requirement.
Hm. However If you think about this only in the context of ports developed by the USB-IF, then USB-C is pretty much the only one that isn’t fatally flawed. USB-A had alignment issues, USB-B was hated for no particularly good reason (bulky, presumably?), mini put the sprung component (read as: the wear part) in the expensive place, in the device, micro had issues with the tongue in the port snapping off, and the USB 3.0 ports were either only modest improvements, or in the case of micro, were just a hot mess.
Having read that I’m no longer sanguine about mandating any port developed by the USB-IF. Perhaps we could agree on a common form factor, perhaps using magnetic attachment and pogo pins, and iterate on the signaling used over it? You could even use USB 3.1 signaling, which opens you up to basically whatever the hell you want to do with it. Or perhaps develop a technically compelling and license-free port, and mandate that?
I’m meandering here, which should be clear by now. Think any of this holds water?
“We are going to keep getting pwned so long as Intel continues to treat security as an enterprise feature.”
For you, though, not losing hours of work to an alpha particle is also quite important, as is ensuring you don’t base weeks of work on quietly corrupt files that work okay until you try to do a checksum after saving to some random piece of the file, only to have the whole thing turn into a potato.
Don’t forget that John Gruber has some interesting dirt on the USB-C standard
I have heard, can’t say who, but let’s call them “informed little birdies”, that USB-C is an Apple invention and that they gave it to the standard bodies. And that the politics of such is that they can’t really say that. They’re not going to come out in public and say it, but they did. It is an Apple invention and they do want it to become a standard.
In addition, recall that other phone makers approached Apple about licensing the Lightning port, and were turned down. I have a feeling that’s because if Apple introduced a new Lightning peripheral, and everybody else’s Lightning ports didn’t support them, it would be Apple that got heat for the completely-predictable lack of Android updates to support the hardware.
I'm aghast that Google wasted the opportunity to turn the Motorola Atrix into the next Nexus phone, which ran Android on the handheld and ChromeOS on the laptop.
It could have been the exact thing you're talking about, as well as bringing your phone's fat data plan to your laptop without carrier support for tethering, or ugly hacks.
Frankly, I prefer Google Docs' feature-set-to-UI ratio. Frankly, it reminds me pleasantly of Word '97.
Maybe what I need to do is install Word '97 on a processor from 2017, and pretend I'm using an RTOS, but I suspect that will be difficult, and I'm pretty sure that nobody else will be able to open those documents any more. But you won't be able to beat that responsiveness with a stick!
Small sites not exercising editorial control is a goddamn nightmare. Have you ever been a member of one on the receiving end of the Goon Squad, or worse, advertising bots? If all speech must be allowed and protected, does that include speech facilitated by machine?
Then what's the revenue model for the service? Is there one?
There used to be a paid social network with no ads. I can't even remember what it was called.. A social network, true to name, is deeply reliant on the network effect, ie, its value increases geometrically as the number of nodes in the network increases linearly. I honestly don't think it's possible to break into the market for mainstream social networks at this point; the only real approach left now is to find a niche, and increase the signal-to-noise ratio sufficiently to make it compelling - LinkedIn, for example.
Oh - not the one I remembered, but I found something called Vero that offers a subscription-based social network, with its first million-ish members getting free-for-life memberships. I guess such a thing does still exist, but the exception proves the rule, as they say.
Bill, there are 27 citations, seven suggested readings, and nine external links. Are you really telling me that Gweihir didn’t “provide one little citation”?
Aasterinian almighty.
Okay, fine. Here’s what I found and how I found it.
Google is your friend.. You need only provide the search query ‘productivity workday hours’ and you’ll find this in the first position on the first page. Granted, filter-bubbling is a real problem, but Inc. isn’t exactly the most slanted liberal rag in the history of the blue team. And I quote:
in 1914, Ford Motor Company astonished everyone by cutting daily hours down to eight while simultaneously doubling wages. The result? Increased productivity.
(Emphasis mine)
Now, the workday is ripe for another disruption. Research suggests that in an eight-hour day, the average worker is only productive for two hours and 53 minutes.
Now please don’t continue to argue from a position of ignorance; this should give you ample google juice to ask meaningful questions going forward.
But wait, there’s more!Here on our very platform, we can see just why people engage in those sort of distractions. Short answer? People ain’t machines.
Hold up. 30% of their content must come from each EU country.
28÷3 = 9.3
So either each country’s originals are banned from viewing in other countries, this law needs amending, or the math says they need ten times more content, without increasing their supply of content. The math simply can’t work as presented in the summary.
From Variety,
EU nations can each choose whether the 30% includes sub-quotas on original productions in their countries and whether they want to follow the German model of adding a small surcharge on streamer subscription fees to support the national production fund.
Okay, so we’ve got the option to make that third entirely handled within the country. Yet even that is ambiguous — is it a third of Netflix’s catalogue has to be made in Europe, or a third in every single of the twenty eight member countries? ‘Cause that’s sure what everyone seems to say, and that’s mathematically impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
The answer is ablation.. You're going to flash-boil some rock, which is going to expand against the main body, and create thrust as it leaves in the other direction at a very good clip.
As for wasting energy from the blast into space, there are approaches to mitigating that, which go all the way back to Project Orion.
Revolvers, as a whole, ARE semiautomatic.
Given that during the average self-defense gunfight, the defending expends nine rounds, the average defensive shooter would need to reload at least once during a fight. Reloading revolvers is slow.
Note, though, that there’s no parity: A party attempting to kill someone need only get close and fire one round, though they’re probably wise to use two to the chest and one to the head, just to be sure. (However, if someone’s sending trained hit-men, you’re right fucked, so let’s not bother planning for that contingency)
A second, and more interesting point, if I may. Given that you say that “You can have revolvers, bolt action rifles, and pump action shotguns only. That’s plenty for hunting, farmer use, and self defense.” Assume I am properly licensed to carry a gun. Would you be comfortable with me swinging around a pump shotgun in public at all times? (Side note: I wouldn’t be — open carry is just an invitation to get shot first) How about I saw it off so it’s easier to conceal, per my license privileges? Would you be willing to repeal the NFA to achieve this goal?
A more interesting point can be made, however. “Some reasonable restrictions” has been used to justify gun control over and over again. I call this phenomenon “serial compromise”; I’m not sure anyone else has ever put a name to it before. Some of the most well known include:
Every single time it’s been described as a “just this once, just this gun” event, but in practice they come along every decade or two. Colion Noir explains it better than I do.
https://youtu.be/zCZHMRhsjPk
I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to switch to Android.
How about this alternative response:
Standards-Essential patents don't. Once you get the world to agree to use your technology exclusively, you generally don't get to decide who can have nice things any more, or your product isn't a standard any more. Typically, as part of the give-and-take of turning your patented technology into a standard, you must commit to licensing your technology in a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory manner -- you don't get to play kingmaker. That's what you give up to earn scads of business.
You throw shade, but I bet that a Yubikey would actually let you do that securely...
You mean like the Silk Road stuff?
You're not playing it right - the narrator is utterly hilarious when you start to piss him off.
Actually, those containerized freight pods could essentially be pulling double duty as hotel rooms and escape pods, with a little engineering...
Last time I flew, the douche-canoe in front of me tried to unjam his seat from the vertical and locked position.
You probably know where this is going, but the thing jamming his seat was my femurs. Until I shouted for a stewardess, he didn’t stop, and I had badly bruised knees while helping my uncle pack his shit for an interstate move.
Of course, I started with “Ow!” And “Sir, that’s my legs, would you - ow, fuck! - please stop - dammit! - banging on - ouch! - the seat?
Nope. Between two and five minutes of - you know, that probably constituted battery, in hindsight. It’d certainly get pled down, but getting the entitled fucker arrested and out of the seat in front of me would have been worth it all by itself.
The problem was that those “gobs of channels no one needs” from the aughties were essentially dominated by what would come to be known on Steam as the “zero effort asset flip”. For the cost of a hundred and fifty channels of bullshit attempts at micro targeting, we probably could have had ten or fifteen channels of solid gold. Except for one little problem
Every hour of TV is really forty minutes of content, and twenty minutes of advertising. If you spend your budget on fifteen gold-plated channels, you’ve just cut your other revenue stream by 90%. You literally can not run enough ads in an hour to make up for that loss. Unlike Steam, there was no policy on “game shaped objects” or, I suppose, “cable network shaped objects” to fall back upon.
The desire for unbelievable profit margins did not help us here. The profit motive didn’t motivate competition and quality, it motivated the garden channel, the crochet channel, the kitten channel, and reality TV.
Remember how Steve Jobs described the 30-pin Dock Connector as having served them well for a decade, but that Lightning was the flexible, digital, software-defined connector for the next decade? This will make six years, which isn't too bad, but I'll be annoyed about all my Lightning speaker-docks. (Not too annoyed, though - they were all bought super-cheap.)
Remember the micro-USB charging mandate?
Amusingly, both of Apple’s proprietary charging standards have lasted longer than said mandate.
USB-C is better for all applications? Go find me a locking USB-C port. I’ll wait. No? Hm. Perhaps DockPort may be better if you need it. (USB alternate mode lets you put DisplayPort signaling down a USB cable; DockPort lets you put USB signaling down a DisplayPort cable. Both let you send both data-streams simultaneously.)
I’m inclined to give you that in most applications, it may be competitive with the best, but by mandating ports, you also have to use it in all the rest of the use cases. This means you may be stuck using an inferior connector. Sometimes, it won’t be fit for purpose, but will be crowbarred in there anyway. Other times, it causes stranded assets. Remember the shit-show that was micro-USB–3.0? Presumably it was designed in that godawful way to satisfy the micro-USB charging requirement.
Hm. However If you think about this only in the context of ports developed by the USB-IF, then USB-C is pretty much the only one that isn’t fatally flawed. USB-A had alignment issues, USB-B was hated for no particularly good reason (bulky, presumably?), mini put the sprung component (read as: the wear part) in the expensive place, in the device, micro had issues with the tongue in the port snapping off, and the USB 3.0 ports were either only modest improvements, or in the case of micro, were just a hot mess.
Having read that I’m no longer sanguine about mandating any port developed by the USB-IF. Perhaps we could agree on a common form factor, perhaps using magnetic attachment and pogo pins, and iterate on the signaling used over it? You could even use USB 3.1 signaling, which opens you up to basically whatever the hell you want to do with it. Or perhaps develop a technically compelling and license-free port, and mandate that?
I’m meandering here, which should be clear by now. Think any of this holds water?
Owch. That pretty well articulates my feelings on the matter better than I ever could.
You also need ECC ram.
As I recently realized,
For you, though, not losing hours of work to an alpha particle is also quite important, as is ensuring you don’t base weeks of work on quietly corrupt files that work okay until you try to do a checksum after saving to some random piece of the file, only to have the whole thing turn into a potato.
Don’t forget that John Gruber has some interesting dirt on the USB-C standard
In addition, recall that other phone makers approached Apple about licensing the Lightning port, and were turned down. I have a feeling that’s because if Apple introduced a new Lightning peripheral, and everybody else’s Lightning ports didn’t support them, it would be Apple that got heat for the completely-predictable lack of Android updates to support the hardware.
https://cloud.google.com/secur...
Actually, Google's cloud products seem to support HIPAA compliance now, so long as the customer holds up their end of the bargain.
I'm aghast that Google wasted the opportunity to turn the Motorola Atrix into the next Nexus phone, which ran Android on the handheld and ChromeOS on the laptop.
It could have been the exact thing you're talking about, as well as bringing your phone's fat data plan to your laptop without carrier support for tethering, or ugly hacks.
Frankly, I prefer Google Docs' feature-set-to-UI ratio. Frankly, it reminds me pleasantly of Word '97.
Maybe what I need to do is install Word '97 on a processor from 2017, and pretend I'm using an RTOS, but I suspect that will be difficult, and I'm pretty sure that nobody else will be able to open those documents any more. But you won't be able to beat that responsiveness with a stick!
Small sites not exercising editorial control is a goddamn nightmare. Have you ever been a member of one on the receiving end of the Goon Squad, or worse, advertising bots? If all speech must be allowed and protected, does that include speech facilitated by machine?
Then what's the revenue model for the service? Is there one?
There used to be a paid social network with no ads. I can't even remember what it was called.. A social network, true to name, is deeply reliant on the network effect, ie, its value increases geometrically as the number of nodes in the network increases linearly. I honestly don't think it's possible to break into the market for mainstream social networks at this point; the only real approach left now is to find a niche, and increase the signal-to-noise ratio sufficiently to make it compelling - LinkedIn, for example.
Oh - not the one I remembered, but I found something called Vero that offers a subscription-based social network, with its first million-ish members getting free-for-life memberships. I guess such a thing does still exist, but the exception proves the rule, as they say.
Bill, there are 27 citations, seven suggested readings, and nine external links. Are you really telling me that Gweihir didn’t “provide one little citation”?
Aasterinian almighty.
Okay, fine. Here’s what I found and how I found it.
Google is your friend.. You need only provide the search query ‘productivity workday hours’ and you’ll find this in the first position on the first page. Granted, filter-bubbling is a real problem, but Inc. isn’t exactly the most slanted liberal rag in the history of the blue team. And I quote:
(Emphasis mine)
Citation required? Here it is.
Now please don’t continue to argue from a position of ignorance; this should give you ample google juice to ask meaningful questions going forward.
But wait, there’s more! Here on our very platform, we can see just why people engage in those sort of distractions. Short answer? People ain’t machines.
Hold up. 30% of their content must come from each EU country.
28÷3 = 9.3
So either each country’s originals are banned from viewing in other countries, this law needs amending, or the math says they need ten times more content, without increasing their supply of content. The math simply can’t work as presented in the summary.
From Variety,
Okay, so we’ve got the option to make that third entirely handled within the country. Yet even that is ambiguous — is it a third of Netflix’s catalogue has to be made in Europe, or a third in every single of the twenty eight member countries? ‘Cause that’s sure what everyone seems to say, and that’s mathematically impossible.
So what the fuck do I give my 98 year old grandfather?
I'm going to be blamed for any failures, including the failure to deliver a solution in a timely fashion.
Your link is broken.