It's clear you know nothing about bicycle helmets starting with your complete lack of awareness of how many different kinds there are. It would appear you are commenting on road racing helmets, through you know nothing about those either.
"...because you know, unlike cyclists, these people can afford cars..."
Cyclists can't afford cars? Car passengers can afford cars? Car passengers' brains are more valuable than cyclists' brains? Helmets are mandatory for cyclists? Helmet laws are determined based on the value of the brain?
How is any of this "Insightful"? I realize the sarcasm, but the entire premise demonstrates ignorance on the part of the poster.
Yes, many wear helmets and there's a large market for them. Helmet adoption is near universal within the cycling community itself so if you aren't seeing it then you aren't around cyclists.
No, the purpose of the post in question was to make a xenophobic remark. No one needs it pointed out to them that bicycle helmets don't help when "gross damage to internal organs" occurs nor are helmets intended to address that.
Diesel has higher energy density, but that doesn't mean burning it produces less carbon or results in a more efficient engine. Furthermore, the engines proposed in the hybrid solution are not the same "high torque industrial engines". What's "pants-on-head retarded" is your failure to understand the things you comment on.
You say this only because you fail to understand what the purpose of hybrid in this application is. It is not for energy recovery made possible by "stop start driving in cities".
Says an Intel spokesman. That is, however, not true.
Physical access is required of systems that have taken actions to require it, namely physical access required to update certain flash data. For systems that haven't done this, physical access isn't required.
How do you know that a guy with a "genius grant" figured this out, as opposed an attorney who was consulted? Hell, even an AC on/. can figure that out.
Perhaps it just never occurred to you that the DOJ is non-partisan and its consistency and continuity says nothing about the differences between political parties.
Of course, nothing you post demonstrates the slightest insight.
That's because you misunderstand what an SUV is. SUV did not originally mean "off-road".
The SUV was born with the Ford Explorer, not especially an off-road vehicle, where the "Sport" was in contrast to its most obvious competition---minivans. At the time, station wagons fell out of favor due to government regulations that favored truck platforms. Families started buying minivans and the SUV was born as a "sporty" alternative.
Once the category mattered, true off-road vehicles were lumped into it. Jeeps never defined the SUV, masculine station wagons did. Companies like Volvo literally converted their wagons to SUVs by jacking them up a few inches and slapping new skins on them. Companies that entered the category, like MB and VW, with true off-road worthiness soon learned that was a disadvantage and removed the "truck" from future models.
So the Model X is an SUV in the classic definition of an SUV and you suffer from a history deficit. No, the biggest problem with the Model X is that it is the worst eyesore on the road today. It is brazenly the minivan that all SUVs are and lacks the masculine styling that differentiates them.
"Likely, DNA/RNA with more base pairs have developed naturally before (probably several times), but were eventually selected out after having to compete with 4-base pair DNA."
And why would it be selected out? Are you claiming that it could not compete with 4-base pair due encoding efficiency? Please.
Google, Amazon and Oracle all control their own server architectures, each use a different processor architecture and none of them care what Torvalds thinks. These companies have a great deal to say about what the cloud is and they don't agree on processor.
The processor that runs code deployed in a high level language really does not matter, does Linus really not understand that?
The reasons x86 grew to dominate have little to do with current requirements and aren't interesting in predicting the future.
"The reason why people fail is because they cannot hold savings long enough to buy the expensive but durable goods. Instead, they'll spend their savings on something they don't need (as much)."
Spoken like a true moron. I suppose lack of memory safety is a "decision" for processor manufacturers too. How dare assemblers not implement proper heap protection!
If you can't understand tools and how they are used, find something else. Your inability to code properly is not C's fault.
Black American culture is unique, but why is that? Could it have anything to do with generations of systemic racism?
It's true that black Americans have to overcome culture that works against their interests, but it's both black culture AND American culture that's to blame. Does anyone honestly believe that black American culture would be what it is without hundreds of years of racism?
"As the guy below said, the problem is poor cultural attitude towards hard work and education."
That is A problem, but but not the only problem. Furthermore, the "poor cultural attitude" is a result of a broader culture that includes racism.
Your single example may not suffer from the same discrimination that many blacks do and for every successful immigrant story there is a successful black American story. While your example is interesting, it simply doesn't support your claim.
Now...of course "nobody" keeps black people in the US in poverty, but that doesn't mean black people in the US aren't heavily disadvantaged or that this "poor cultural attitude" you speak of is the cause of it rather than a symptom of it. Stop pretending that people are uniformly afforded the same opportunities.
Slashdot Mirror
It's clear you know nothing about bicycle helmets starting with your complete lack of awareness of how many different kinds there are. It would appear you are commenting on road racing helmets, through you know nothing about those either.
"...because you know, unlike cyclists, these people can afford cars..."
Cyclists can't afford cars? Car passengers can afford cars? Car passengers' brains are more valuable than cyclists' brains? Helmets are mandatory for cyclists? Helmet laws are determined based on the value of the brain?
How is any of this "Insightful"? I realize the sarcasm, but the entire premise demonstrates ignorance on the part of the poster.
Yes, many wear helmets and there's a large market for them. Helmet adoption is near universal within the cycling community itself so if you aren't seeing it then you aren't around cyclists.
No, the purpose of the post in question was to make a xenophobic remark. No one needs it pointed out to them that bicycle helmets don't help when "gross damage to internal organs" occurs nor are helmets intended to address that.
Diesel has higher energy density, but that doesn't mean burning it produces less carbon or results in a more efficient engine. Furthermore, the engines proposed in the hybrid solution are not the same "high torque industrial engines". What's "pants-on-head retarded" is your failure to understand the things you comment on.
You say this only because you fail to understand what the purpose of hybrid in this application is. It is not for energy recovery made possible by "stop start driving in cities".
What does "most efficient fuel" mean? Fuels are not efficient.
Says an Intel spokesman. That is, however, not true.
Physical access is required of systems that have taken actions to require it, namely physical access required to update certain flash data. For systems that haven't done this, physical access isn't required.
I don't remember that time nor does anyone who modded you insightful.
It doesn't sound right because it's a straw man of your creation.
How do you know that a guy with a "genius grant" figured this out, as opposed an attorney who was consulted? Hell, even an AC on /. can figure that out.
Perhaps it just never occurred to you that the DOJ is non-partisan and its consistency and continuity says nothing about the differences between political parties.
Of course, nothing you post demonstrates the slightest insight.
That's because you misunderstand what an SUV is. SUV did not originally mean "off-road".
The SUV was born with the Ford Explorer, not especially an off-road vehicle, where the "Sport" was in contrast to its most obvious competition---minivans. At the time, station wagons fell out of favor due to government regulations that favored truck platforms. Families started buying minivans and the SUV was born as a "sporty" alternative.
Once the category mattered, true off-road vehicles were lumped into it. Jeeps never defined the SUV, masculine station wagons did. Companies like Volvo literally converted their wagons to SUVs by jacking them up a few inches and slapping new skins on them. Companies that entered the category, like MB and VW, with true off-road worthiness soon learned that was a disadvantage and removed the "truck" from future models.
So the Model X is an SUV in the classic definition of an SUV and you suffer from a history deficit. No, the biggest problem with the Model X is that it is the worst eyesore on the road today. It is brazenly the minivan that all SUVs are and lacks the masculine styling that differentiates them.
"Likely, DNA/RNA with more base pairs have developed naturally before (probably several times), but were eventually selected out after having to compete with 4-base pair DNA."
And why would it be selected out? Are you claiming that it could not compete with 4-base pair due encoding efficiency? Please.
"...but I wouldn't be surprised at some point if we saw devices with USB-C connectors that don't support USB. "
Unsurprisingly posted by an AC. No thought required.
Google, Amazon and Oracle all control their own server architectures, each use a different processor architecture and none of them care what Torvalds thinks. These companies have a great deal to say about what the cloud is and they don't agree on processor.
The processor that runs code deployed in a high level language really does not matter, does Linus really not understand that?
The reasons x86 grew to dominate have little to do with current requirements and aren't interesting in predicting the future.
I don't you could have been less insightful if you tried.
"The reason why people fail is because they cannot hold savings long enough to buy the expensive but durable goods. Instead, they'll spend their savings on something they don't need (as much)."
Like food for their children.
It's not their choice if poverty prevents that choice. You may have missed this part: "are not just a response to poverty -- but a cause."
It would appear, AC, that you believe that "America" stands for f*cking the poor.
It's a shame when you boil down an important issue to a false choice between a silver-spooned, entitled buffoon and a malignant narcissist.
Exactly, and uses his old reliable /. channel to do it. The sooner this fool disappears the better.
Sooner or later there will be an extinction level event that will be harder to overcome than colonizing Venus? Sure, we should get right on that.
Spoken like a true moron. I suppose lack of memory safety is a "decision" for processor manufacturers too. How dare assemblers not implement proper heap protection!
If you can't understand tools and how they are used, find something else. Your inability to code properly is not C's fault.
Black American culture is unique, but why is that? Could it have anything to do with generations of systemic racism?
It's true that black Americans have to overcome culture that works against their interests, but it's both black culture AND American culture that's to blame. Does anyone honestly believe that black American culture would be what it is without hundreds of years of racism?
"As the guy below said, the problem is poor cultural attitude towards hard work and education."
That is A problem, but but not the only problem. Furthermore, the "poor cultural attitude" is a result of a broader culture that includes racism.
Your single example may not suffer from the same discrimination that many blacks do and for every successful immigrant story there is a successful black American story. While your example is interesting, it simply doesn't support your claim.
Now...of course "nobody" keeps black people in the US in poverty, but that doesn't mean black people in the US aren't heavily disadvantaged or that this "poor cultural attitude" you speak of is the cause of it rather than a symptom of it. Stop pretending that people are uniformly afforded the same opportunities.