Sharks aren't like swans. They don't mate for life, they mate with whomever happens to be around, and if there is nobody else around they don't mate. Mostly they eat.
Isn't that what everyone said when Netflix started making shows? Turned out OK for them.
There is a lot of content out there. A lot of it is garbage. A lot of shows are canned because they aren't popular *enough* for a particular demographic. Or because a network head doesn't like a producer, or production company, or director.
Sure is, though nuclear power plants use uranium for fuel. The fuel rods do contain trace amounts of plutonium and other radioactive elements, but not much.
Most of the high level stuff will have decayed significantly by then. Send workers in, chop up what's left, seal it up in drums and throw it in an abandoned salt mine.
Or, technology might be available to recycle it into new nuclear fuel.
Has the title bar expanded an inch or two? Why so much wasted vertical space?
This +1000. I understand the need for whitespace on a touch UI, but why is everything spaced so far apart on my desktop? I have a giant HD monitor so I can fit a bunch of stuff on screen at the same time (not a fan of multimonitor, I'd rather have one huge monitor) With a 2" border around everything, I'm going to need a separate monitor or a 34" 4K monitor just so I can have a media player in one corner, Notepad++ in the other corner, and an IDE open on the side.
3D theatrical releases still do OK, but not TVs. That's because for 3D to work properly, the screen needs to eat up a large portion of your view field. That's easy to do in a theater. At home you'd need a gigantic multi-thousand dollar TV gobbling up a big chunk of your living room to get the same effect.
3D on a small screen looks like stuff is popping out of a box at you, instead of immersing you in the image.
To state the obvious: the 4K version is nothing more than a pathetic, utterly pathetic money grab. And nothing more. That should be fairly obvious to anyone. I can't think of any possible value that four thousand pixels will bring to that movie. I just have a bad feeling about this...
No, the previous re-re-re-releases were pathetic money grabs. A proper 4K restoration is what they should have done in the first place.
For some libraries, sure, but my local public library is using, maybe, 60% of their shelf space and they still seem to purge tons of books almost monthly. The exception is kids books, which they seem to hold on to forever.
Around me there is a lot of cheap, empty warehouse space. I think it would be cool for a bunch of library systems to get together and buy one, converting it into a giant set of stacks for "archived" books. Shoot, downtown there is a converted warehouse bookstore that carries more books than any library in the area (and there are some HUGE libraries in the area)
Will water shield against cosmic rays? Because that's what I've heard the main problem with mars colonization is - there is no magnetosphere to shield against solar storms. One hiccup from the sun and everyone on the surface gets a lethal dose of X-rays.
Then each track gets all of its effects added sequentially, but each track potentially gets processed on a separate thread. Finally, the outputs of those threads get summed and additional effects added to the result, which can happen on yet another thread.
So potentially you have 41 threads working on data in parallel, plus other threads for unrelated stuff like UI updates.
That does speed things up, however, processing a stack of effects on a single track can take quite a long time, especially if you're doing everything in 96KHz/192KHz at 24-bit, which is how a lot of mixing is done these days before dithering down to 44.1/16.
Also, with 41 tracks of HD audio, RAM throughput is going to be a bottleneck - so performance isn't going to scale linearly across threads. The bottleneck is the effects stack itself, which the OP pointed out, isn't very parallelize-able, so brute-force crunching with a ton of clock cycles is the best way to speed this up.
I know a few audio engineers, and they are the only non-gamers I'm aware of who overclock their machines. They use those overbuilt, sound-deadened chassis with water cooled everything.
How about combining the two technologies so you don't have to worry about the socket getting dirty, or the plug wearing out, or having different standards of plugs? If the charging inductor is on the end of a robotic arm, it can get it right next to the inductor on the car, and your inductive loss goes down to nearly zero.
And the majority of even the F-150 market is not ranchers and contractors or people who actually use pickup trucks. It's suburban wannabes who occasionally need to haul large but comparatively lightweight items but for some reason won't simply rent a work truck.
Yeah, sorry, you have no idea what you're talking about. If you've read articles on "truck" demographics, they almost always conflate compact and light duty with medium and heavy duty pickups, along with truck-chasis based SUVs. Remove the compact and SUV segments and it's mostly work trucks. The second largest segment for these vehicles are people towing boats or mobile homes, and that's a pretty small percentage.
BTW: The Ridgeline is back, so I'm also questioning your knowledge of the market.
AFTER BEING GONE FOR TWO YEARS. You don't pull a vehicle off the market if it's doing well.
This road is expensive but it is a prototype research project. It may or may not turn out to be cost effective in the long run but it should be tested.
Why should it be tested? What problem is this solving? Know where there is tons of cheap, empty space for solar panels? Land *next* to highways. They are putting them in all over the place in my area. You can also put them in over parking lots. And on top of factories (*much* cheaper than putting them on homes.) We can do all of this *now*
Because we waste money on fossil fuel subsidies doesn't mean it's also OK to waste money on bad engineering projects.
Any other promising research that you want stopped?
You seem to be assuming that this project is promising. With a bit of basic math, you can figure out that the costs are insanely high, aren't likely to come down any time soon, and would be much better spent building regular solar farms that we know work pretty well.
How about we stop this terrible project, and spend the money on something more promising? Storing energy created by solar/wind is still a pretty big issue, how about throwing some money at that problem?
Says a majority of the people who buy pickups and who, by the way, never fill the bed, haul anything that can't be lifted by two people, or pull a trailer.
1. If that were the case, the Honda would be selling pretty well. Honda pulled the vehicle from N.A. sales a couple years ago due to almost non-existent sales. The F-150 is the best selling vehicle in the US.
2. The F-150 is the most popular vehicle amongst people making more than $1 million a year. It's, pretty much all, contractors and ranchers. You know, people who actually use pickup trucks.
3. I know this because half of my family work directly for automotive manufacturers and suppliers, and they know the market.
Sure, there are plenty of people who buy pickups who don't need them. People buy sports cars and don't race them. People drive Jeeps without ever taking them off road. That doesn't mean a sports car with lousy performance is a good sports car, or an off road vehicle that doesn't do well off-road is a good off-road vehicle.
The point at which I determined CR to be crap for automotive testing is when they gave the Honda pickup truck the recommendation because it had the most comfortable interior and smoothest ride. Of course, it had the smallest bed, the lowest hauling capacity, and the worst trailer rating, but why would you need any of that in a pickup truck?
I've seen spikes in bitcoin prices, mainly, when a large country starts playing around with it's currency. There was a pop earlier this year when Venezuela started cracking down on currency leaving the country, then again when India started dropping certain denominations of currency. Other than that, no rapid moves upwards or downwards other than the odd spike every few months or so.
What we try to do is to calculate what amount of money allow somebody to cover the basic necessities.
Whom is to say what the basic necessities are? They can't be the same for everyone, everywhere, right? Should minimum wage be the same for New York City, San Francisco, Fargo, and Kansas City?
Why even base it on basic necessities at all? Why not productivity / worker output?
At this point $30 sounds more reasonable, doesn't it? But why stop there? Don't you want more people in the middle class? Wouldn't a $50 help lift people out of poverty? I mean, $30 is just enough to live on, right? What about all the poor, single mothers who have to provide for their whole family. Don't they deserve more? Isn't $50 really the right amount?
You can make an argument that any amount is the correct amount. I'm not sure why you think cost of living is the *correct* assessment for minimum wage.
If you want to help people, futzing around with the cost of labor isn't the way to do it. Just do a minimum income / reverse income tax and be done with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Sharks aren't like swans. They don't mate for life, they mate with whomever happens to be around, and if there is nobody else around they don't mate. Mostly they eat.
People live on Fremont Street? I thought it was all locals casinos and bars.
NASA's trips to the planets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Isn't that what everyone said when Netflix started making shows? Turned out OK for them.
There is a lot of content out there. A lot of it is garbage. A lot of shows are canned because they aren't popular *enough* for a particular demographic. Or because a network head doesn't like a producer, or production company, or director.
I'm surprised they acted as fast as they did. Government bureaucracy isn't known for speed or efficiency.
https://www.sumatrapdfreader.o...
Small. Fast. Loads DjVu and some E-Reader formats as well. No spyware.
So plutonium is not "high level stuff"?
Sure is, though nuclear power plants use uranium for fuel. The fuel rods do contain trace amounts of plutonium and other radioactive elements, but not much.
Most of the high level stuff will have decayed significantly by then. Send workers in, chop up what's left, seal it up in drums and throw it in an abandoned salt mine.
Or, technology might be available to recycle it into new nuclear fuel.
Doesn't look like there is any copy protection. The steps are, basically, copy the system image to a PC over USB, modify it, copy it back.
Has the title bar expanded an inch or two? Why so much wasted vertical space?
This +1000. I understand the need for whitespace on a touch UI, but why is everything spaced so far apart on my desktop? I have a giant HD monitor so I can fit a bunch of stuff on screen at the same time (not a fan of multimonitor, I'd rather have one huge monitor) With a 2" border around everything, I'm going to need a separate monitor or a 34" 4K monitor just so I can have a media player in one corner, Notepad++ in the other corner, and an IDE open on the side.
3D theatrical releases still do OK, but not TVs. That's because for 3D to work properly, the screen needs to eat up a large portion of your view field. That's easy to do in a theater. At home you'd need a gigantic multi-thousand dollar TV gobbling up a big chunk of your living room to get the same effect.
3D on a small screen looks like stuff is popping out of a box at you, instead of immersing you in the image.
I would say that someone choosing to video chat on their phone while driving a car is 99% the main factor in that automotive crash.
To state the obvious: the 4K version is nothing more than a pathetic, utterly pathetic money grab. And nothing more. That should be fairly obvious to anyone. I can't think of any possible value that four thousand pixels will bring to that movie. I just have a bad feeling about this...
No, the previous re-re-re-releases were pathetic money grabs. A proper 4K restoration is what they should have done in the first place.
For some libraries, sure, but my local public library is using, maybe, 60% of their shelf space and they still seem to purge tons of books almost monthly. The exception is kids books, which they seem to hold on to forever.
Around me there is a lot of cheap, empty warehouse space. I think it would be cool for a bunch of library systems to get together and buy one, converting it into a giant set of stacks for "archived" books. Shoot, downtown there is a converted warehouse bookstore that carries more books than any library in the area (and there are some HUGE libraries in the area)
Will water shield against cosmic rays? Because that's what I've heard the main problem with mars colonization is - there is no magnetosphere to shield against solar storms. One hiccup from the sun and everyone on the surface gets a lethal dose of X-rays.
Then each track gets all of its effects added sequentially, but each track potentially gets processed on a separate thread. Finally, the outputs of those threads get summed and additional effects added to the result, which can happen on yet another thread.
So potentially you have 41 threads working on data in parallel, plus other threads for unrelated stuff like UI updates.
That does speed things up, however, processing a stack of effects on a single track can take quite a long time, especially if you're doing everything in 96KHz/192KHz at 24-bit, which is how a lot of mixing is done these days before dithering down to 44.1/16.
Also, with 41 tracks of HD audio, RAM throughput is going to be a bottleneck - so performance isn't going to scale linearly across threads. The bottleneck is the effects stack itself, which the OP pointed out, isn't very parallelize-able, so brute-force crunching with a ton of clock cycles is the best way to speed this up.
I know a few audio engineers, and they are the only non-gamers I'm aware of who overclock their machines. They use those overbuilt, sound-deadened chassis with water cooled everything.
How about combining the two technologies so you don't have to worry about the socket getting dirty, or the plug wearing out, or having different standards of plugs? If the charging inductor is on the end of a robotic arm, it can get it right next to the inductor on the car, and your inductive loss goes down to nearly zero.
And the majority of even the F-150 market is not ranchers and contractors or people who actually use pickup trucks. It's suburban wannabes who occasionally need to haul large but comparatively lightweight items but for some reason won't simply rent a work truck.
Yeah, sorry, you have no idea what you're talking about. If you've read articles on "truck" demographics, they almost always conflate compact and light duty with medium and heavy duty pickups, along with truck-chasis based SUVs. Remove the compact and SUV segments and it's mostly work trucks. The second largest segment for these vehicles are people towing boats or mobile homes, and that's a pretty small percentage.
BTW: The Ridgeline is back, so I'm also questioning your knowledge of the market.
AFTER BEING GONE FOR TWO YEARS. You don't pull a vehicle off the market if it's doing well.
This road is expensive but it is a prototype research project. It may or may not turn out to be cost effective in the long run but it should be tested.
Why should it be tested? What problem is this solving? Know where there is tons of cheap, empty space for solar panels? Land *next* to highways. They are putting them in all over the place in my area. You can also put them in over parking lots. And on top of factories (*much* cheaper than putting them on homes.) We can do all of this *now*
Because we waste money on fossil fuel subsidies doesn't mean it's also OK to waste money on bad engineering projects.
Any other promising research that you want stopped?
You seem to be assuming that this project is promising. With a bit of basic math, you can figure out that the costs are insanely high, aren't likely to come down any time soon, and would be much better spent building regular solar farms that we know work pretty well.
How about we stop this terrible project, and spend the money on something more promising? Storing energy created by solar/wind is still a pretty big issue, how about throwing some money at that problem?
Says a majority of the people who buy pickups and who, by the way, never fill the bed, haul anything that can't be lifted by two people, or pull a trailer.
1. If that were the case, the Honda would be selling pretty well. Honda pulled the vehicle from N.A. sales a couple years ago due to almost non-existent sales. The F-150 is the best selling vehicle in the US.
2. The F-150 is the most popular vehicle amongst people making more than $1 million a year. It's, pretty much all, contractors and ranchers. You know, people who actually use pickup trucks.
3. I know this because half of my family work directly for automotive manufacturers and suppliers, and they know the market.
Sure, there are plenty of people who buy pickups who don't need them. People buy sports cars and don't race them. People drive Jeeps without ever taking them off road. That doesn't mean a sports car with lousy performance is a good sports car, or an off road vehicle that doesn't do well off-road is a good off-road vehicle.
The point at which I determined CR to be crap for automotive testing is when they gave the Honda pickup truck the recommendation because it had the most comfortable interior and smoothest ride. Of course, it had the smallest bed, the lowest hauling capacity, and the worst trailer rating, but why would you need any of that in a pickup truck?
Any evidence for any of this?
I've seen spikes in bitcoin prices, mainly, when a large country starts playing around with it's currency. There was a pop earlier this year when Venezuela started cracking down on currency leaving the country, then again when India started dropping certain denominations of currency. Other than that, no rapid moves upwards or downwards other than the odd spike every few months or so.
According to Uber the driver was driving the car - it wasn't in autonomous mode.
What we try to do is to calculate what amount of money allow somebody to cover the basic necessities.
Whom is to say what the basic necessities are? They can't be the same for everyone, everywhere, right? Should minimum wage be the same for New York City, San Francisco, Fargo, and Kansas City?
Why even base it on basic necessities at all? Why not productivity / worker output?
http://cepr.net/documents/publ...
At this point $30 sounds more reasonable, doesn't it? But why stop there? Don't you want more people in the middle class? Wouldn't a $50 help lift people out of poverty? I mean, $30 is just enough to live on, right? What about all the poor, single mothers who have to provide for their whole family. Don't they deserve more? Isn't $50 really the right amount?
You can make an argument that any amount is the correct amount. I'm not sure why you think cost of living is the *correct* assessment for minimum wage.
If you want to help people, futzing around with the cost of labor isn't the way to do it. Just do a minimum income / reverse income tax and be done with it.