You know what the reality of "this era" is? The reality is that we as Americans are safer (from all types of crime, including "terrorism") than at any point in history, and that DHS or other "anti-terrorism" jackbooted thugs have had NOT ONE GODDAMN THING to do with it!
The reality is that some terrorists got lucky ONCE, and shit-for-brains sheeple like you are letting the authoritarian powermongers in our government use that as an excuse to flush our civil rights down the toilet. Knock it off, dipshit!
Indeed, the police's preferred terminology is inaccurate and sensationalist. It almost makes you wonder if they have an ulterior motive (such as, say, scaring the public into accepting their increasingly totalitarian abuses of authority).
Bullshit. Pressure cookers are becoming more popular again, especially because of shows like Iron Chef (where they use pressure cookers all the time because everything has to be ready in an hour).
Our country is "uninvadeable" because of geography, not people with small arms. You can bet if a large standing army were to decide to enter the US, a handful of people with 9mm pistols aren't going to stop it.
Exactly, and that's why the restrictions on so-called "assault weapons" are an unconstitutional travesty.
That almost makes it sound good (for the US): when the bubble pops, America still has all the material goods it imported, while the securities the foreigners bought simply evaporate.
Rule 1: put most of your money in a total stock market index fund (60-90%, depending on how risk-averse you are) with the lowest expense ratio possible.
Rule 2: Put the rest of it in a bond index fund (10-40%), also with the lowest expense ratio possible.
Rule 3: Never, ever sell, even in the worst recession imaginable, except to rebalance or (after retirement) to withdraw living expenses.
Rule 3 is the hard part (psychologically), which is why so many individual investors screw it up. The key is to understand that recessions are irrelevant because the market always eventually goes back up. (And yes, I am including Japan's market in that statement. If you had dollar-cost averaged into Japan's stock market before it crashed and then kept doing that, and did not sell, then you'd still have managed a decent return once you account for dividends.)
The trouble is that just about every fucking "IoT" device is designed to communicate over the Internet to the manufacturer's servers, even when it would make more sense for it to just communicate with a base station/server over the LAN and have the data never leave your house. Allegedly it's for ease of use, but that's bullshit -- it's for data-mining.
I'm a pack-rat and would like to archive whole tab trees for later, see them among the other pages, but not take memory+CPU now.
It's funny how the mobile (Android) versions of both Chrome and Firefox already manage to do this -- I can have 50+ tabs going on my phone and not run out of memory, although some of them will reload when I switch back to them -- but the desktop versions don't.
If it's sufficiently isolated from the rest of the hardware (so that it can't snoop on RAM or anything like that, so it can't override any firewall, and so that when the OS says it's off it's off), that's good enough for me. If the modem can't access any data I don't want it to have in the first place, then I don't have to worry about what it's doing with it.
Replacing centralized, proprietary services in general -- including, but not limited to search engines -- with peer-to-peer services is long overdue. Google Search, Facebook, Twitter, Skype -- they all deserve to die!
It's sort of hard to catch a drive-by when you've disabled the tech through which drive-bys enter your machine.
Quoted for truth!
And that's what the guy in TFS apparently doesn't get. The bottom line is that if you're sending me something I didn't explicitly ask for -- and at this point, all ads qualify -- then I am forced to assume that you are attacking my machine and will defend myself accordingly.
If you want to advertize to me, you can put static text directly on the page (not text generated by Javascript, and not text served from a third-party domain). These are my terms; you can accept them or go fuck yourself.
First of all, let's be honest: if someone is frail enough to require a walker, in many cases they're probably not healthy enough to be operating a vehicle in the first place. In an emergency, how are they going to press the brake pedal hard enough to actually stop effectively (i.e., hard enough that the ABS would kick in)?
Second, in the entire Metro Atlanta area I've only ever noticed one gas station that advertized full service. So how do disabled people around here get gas? Simple! Every staffed gas station, including self-service ones, is required by law to have the attendant pump gas for disabled people, rendering the whole thing a non-issue. (By the way, that's a Federal law -- the Americans with Disabilities Act -- so don't pretend as if it wouldn't apply in New Jersey and Oregon too!)
The bottom line is this: Why should able-bodied people be treated like drooling morons -- and have to pay more -- just so that some minimum-wage worker can pretend that he's useful? The answer is, no goddamn reason at all!
There are no such people. I mean, if there were, then WTF would they do when they go on a trip to a different state? Stand next to the gas pump and act helpless, like a drooling moron?
I went to visit in-laws in Oregon a while back, and was amazed at how much of a pain in the ass getting gas there was. In normal states, you can just get out, pump the gas, pay, and leave. But in Oregon? In Oregon you have to wait in line for fucking ever because they have one guy running around handling all the pumps and there's a line of cars waiting because he can't keep up. People from Oregon say "oh, isn't it great how we don't have to pump our own gas?" No, it really fucking isn't! It's worse!
What makes you think that the autonomous truck will hit the car just like a manned truck? I'd think that with the sensors on the truck tied directly into the autonomous control systems the autotruck could react thousands of times faster and more effectively than a human being truck driver.
Hmm... looks like somebody failed at learning Amdahl's Law.
Let's say a truck is driving at 60 MPH (88 feet per second) when somebody jumps in front of it, 88 feet away. The driver will take 0.5 seconds (44 feet) to react, then the truck's air-brakes will take another 0.5 seconds (44 feet) to engage. By that time, the truck will have hit the person. Then the truck will take another 355 feet to come to a stop.
Let's replace the human-driven truck with an automated one, and assume that the computer is unrealistically perfect and manages to reduce the reaction time to zero (seconds or feet). In that case, it still takes 0.5 seconds (44 feet) for the air brakes to engage, so the truck has "only" 311 feet of braking distance left to travel when it hits the person.
In other words, reaction time accounts for only about 10% of the total stopping distance, so the maximum improvement gained by switching to an autonomous truck would be about 10%. That's not zero, but it's also not "thousands of times" better, as you claimed.
My clicky keyboard is the basic one from monoprice.com, which was the cheapest I could find at them time. It has Cherry MX Blue switches and no funky lights or anything, and was about $60 without any rebates.
You did, in the initial claim I quoted: "Let's be honest: These machines will only get better and better, meaning they'll be able to carry heavier and heavier payloads."
The point I'm trying to make is that you could have a drone capable of lifting a fuckton of payload right now, just by (for example) retrofitting autonomous controls to one of these.
In other words, since helicopters already exist in a wide range of sizes and capacities and autonomous controls could be fitted to almost any of them, there's no reason to think drones will get "better and better" (from an aircraft perspective) because were already so to begin with. The only part that's going to be getting "better and better" at a rapid pace is the software driving the damn things.
That sounds impressive until you remember that the 1911 acp is named such because it was first produced over a century ago, in 1911. I mean, making it using a new technology is fine and dandy, but it's not as if the object itself is particularly complicated, built to a fine tolerance, or anything like that.
LOL, batteries?! Cheap plastic toys run on batteries. You show me a drone that runs on batteries, and I'll show you an R/C helicopter that with an actual fuel-burning engine that's a better aircraft in every way. Batteries have nothing to do with the state of the art, except maybe for running the guidance computer.
Let's be honest: These machines will only get better and better, meaning they'll be able to carry heavier and heavier payloads.
We're talking about aircraft, not electronics, you know. There's no Moore's Law going on there. They'll continue to get better and better at flying autonomously and whatnot, but they're only going to improve in terms of load capacity, range, speed, etc. at the same slow rate regular helicopters have been improving at in for the last 50 years or so.
Slashdot Mirror
FUCK YOU and FUCK YOUR "THIS ERA" BULLSHIT!
You know what the reality of "this era" is? The reality is that we as Americans are safer (from all types of crime, including "terrorism") than at any point in history, and that DHS or other "anti-terrorism" jackbooted thugs have had NOT ONE GODDAMN THING to do with it!
The reality is that some terrorists got lucky ONCE, and shit-for-brains sheeple like you are letting the authoritarian powermongers in our government use that as an excuse to flush our civil rights down the toilet. Knock it off, dipshit!
Indeed, the police's preferred terminology is inaccurate and sensationalist. It almost makes you wonder if they have an ulterior motive (such as, say, scaring the public into accepting their increasingly totalitarian abuses of authority).
Bullshit. Pressure cookers are becoming more popular again, especially because of shows like Iron Chef (where they use pressure cookers all the time because everything has to be ready in an hour).
Do I really have to start citing Ferguson and Baltimore, you fucking moron?!
Exactly, and that's why the restrictions on so-called "assault weapons" are an unconstitutional travesty.
That almost makes it sound good (for the US): when the bubble pops, America still has all the material goods it imported, while the securities the foreigners bought simply evaporate.
Rule 3 is the hard part (psychologically), which is why so many individual investors screw it up. The key is to understand that recessions are irrelevant because the market always eventually goes back up. (And yes, I am including Japan's market in that statement. If you had dollar-cost averaged into Japan's stock market before it crashed and then kept doing that, and did not sell, then you'd still have managed a decent return once you account for dividends.)
No. "IoT" most definately == cloud. Everything that actually respects your privacy came out before "IoT" was a thing.
"IoT" is a euphemism for "home automation, except trojaned so we can steal your data."
The trouble is that just about every fucking "IoT" device is designed to communicate over the Internet to the manufacturer's servers, even when it would make more sense for it to just communicate with a base station/server over the LAN and have the data never leave your house. Allegedly it's for ease of use, but that's bullshit -- it's for data-mining.
Okay, so smartphones, tablets, Chromebooks / "streambooks" and the like aren't valid devices anymore?
It's funny how the mobile (Android) versions of both Chrome and Firefox already manage to do this -- I can have 50+ tabs going on my phone and not run out of memory, although some of them will reload when I switch back to them -- but the desktop versions don't.
If it's sufficiently isolated from the rest of the hardware (so that it can't snoop on RAM or anything like that, so it can't override any firewall, and so that when the OS says it's off it's off), that's good enough for me. If the modem can't access any data I don't want it to have in the first place, then I don't have to worry about what it's doing with it.
Go back to using separate heatsinks instead of one gigantic one?
With that attitude, the union shouldn't be surprised when somebody does "deal with it" -- Jimmy Hoffa style!
Replacing centralized, proprietary services in general -- including, but not limited to search engines -- with peer-to-peer services is long overdue. Google Search, Facebook, Twitter, Skype -- they all deserve to die!
Quoted for truth!
And that's what the guy in TFS apparently doesn't get. The bottom line is that if you're sending me something I didn't explicitly ask for -- and at this point, all ads qualify -- then I am forced to assume that you are attacking my machine and will defend myself accordingly.
If you want to advertize to me, you can put static text directly on the page (not text generated by Javascript, and not text served from a third-party domain). These are my terms; you can accept them or go fuck yourself.
First of all, let's be honest: if someone is frail enough to require a walker, in many cases they're probably not healthy enough to be operating a vehicle in the first place. In an emergency, how are they going to press the brake pedal hard enough to actually stop effectively (i.e., hard enough that the ABS would kick in)?
Second, in the entire Metro Atlanta area I've only ever noticed one gas station that advertized full service. So how do disabled people around here get gas? Simple! Every staffed gas station, including self-service ones, is required by law to have the attendant pump gas for disabled people, rendering the whole thing a non-issue. (By the way, that's a Federal law -- the Americans with Disabilities Act -- so don't pretend as if it wouldn't apply in New Jersey and Oregon too!)
The bottom line is this: Why should able-bodied people be treated like drooling morons -- and have to pay more -- just so that some minimum-wage worker can pretend that he's useful? The answer is, no goddamn reason at all!
There are no such people. I mean, if there were, then WTF would they do when they go on a trip to a different state? Stand next to the gas pump and act helpless, like a drooling moron?
I went to visit in-laws in Oregon a while back, and was amazed at how much of a pain in the ass getting gas there was. In normal states, you can just get out, pump the gas, pay, and leave. But in Oregon? In Oregon you have to wait in line for fucking ever because they have one guy running around handling all the pumps and there's a line of cars waiting because he can't keep up. People from Oregon say "oh, isn't it great how we don't have to pump our own gas?" No, it really fucking isn't! It's worse!
Hmm... looks like somebody failed at learning Amdahl's Law.
Let's say a truck is driving at 60 MPH (88 feet per second) when somebody jumps in front of it, 88 feet away. The driver will take 0.5 seconds (44 feet) to react, then the truck's air-brakes will take another 0.5 seconds (44 feet) to engage. By that time, the truck will have hit the person. Then the truck will take another 355 feet to come to a stop.
Let's replace the human-driven truck with an automated one, and assume that the computer is unrealistically perfect and manages to reduce the reaction time to zero (seconds or feet). In that case, it still takes 0.5 seconds (44 feet) for the air brakes to engage, so the truck has "only" 311 feet of braking distance left to travel when it hits the person.
In other words, reaction time accounts for only about 10% of the total stopping distance, so the maximum improvement gained by switching to an autonomous truck would be about 10%. That's not zero, but it's also not "thousands of times" better, as you claimed.
Here's a clicky keyboard for $60. I'm typing this post on one, and it's great.
My clicky keyboard is the basic one from monoprice.com, which was the cheapest I could find at them time. It has Cherry MX Blue switches and no funky lights or anything, and was about $60 without any rebates.
You did, in the initial claim I quoted: "Let's be honest: These machines will only get better and better, meaning they'll be able to carry heavier and heavier payloads."
The point I'm trying to make is that you could have a drone capable of lifting a fuckton of payload right now, just by (for example) retrofitting autonomous controls to one of these.
In other words, since helicopters already exist in a wide range of sizes and capacities and autonomous controls could be fitted to almost any of them, there's no reason to think drones will get "better and better" (from an aircraft perspective) because were already so to begin with. The only part that's going to be getting "better and better" at a rapid pace is the software driving the damn things.
That sounds impressive until you remember that the 1911 acp is named such because it was first produced over a century ago, in 1911. I mean, making it using a new technology is fine and dandy, but it's not as if the object itself is particularly complicated, built to a fine tolerance, or anything like that.
LOL, batteries?! Cheap plastic toys run on batteries. You show me a drone that runs on batteries, and I'll show you an R/C helicopter that with an actual fuel-burning engine that's a better aircraft in every way. Batteries have nothing to do with the state of the art, except maybe for running the guidance computer.
We're talking about aircraft, not electronics, you know. There's no Moore's Law going on there. They'll continue to get better and better at flying autonomously and whatnot, but they're only going to improve in terms of load capacity, range, speed, etc. at the same slow rate regular helicopters have been improving at in for the last 50 years or so.