so, that means, at least 3 days, of 10 hours driving straight, with 1 hour pause for filling up (when you can have lunch)
This means that before and after lunch you drive 5 hours non-stop.
it does seem sensible...
to me, it sounds bordering to dangerous, unless you have multiple drivers and rotate them behind the wheel, so everyone get to drive a bit and rest a bit during one of these 5 hours stretch.
bexond 2 hours, you start to be really tired and lose concentration.
Please pay attention to the above posts, what the initial poster want is NOT universal access (so he can give the phone to anyone else to make the picture, without granting access to anything else in the phone). Lots of smartphones, including iPhone, have special "different Swipes" that open the camera app straight without requiring the security pin or finger print.
What the poster wanted is to push down a shutter and immediately have a picture take, so he can take quick picture before the event interesting him finishes. You just press the button and the picture is taken. Sony smartphone have a dedicated hardware button that immediately takes the picture, mimicking the "immediateness" of pushing down a shutter. Some smartphone (even non android one) do a little bit of button remapping so, as long as the camera app is running, you could immediately take a picture (but might lose the ability to set volume while the app is running due to limited amount of buttons)
iPhone needs you to swipe to start the camera app (or fully unlock it) and the touch an icon on the screen to take a picture. Yes, it could be done by "anyone" (your point), but it take a little bit more time than immediately pushing down a shutter button like on a real camera or the similar quickness of dedicated hardware button by Sony (and this speed is what interested the above poster so he doen't miss an interesting impromptu event)
Means that doing one type of slide "unlocks you" to the main menu interface. While doing another type of slide will start the camera app (while not granting you access to anything else in the phone) - this even works if normal unlock requires a PIN or - as in recent iPhone - a fingerprint.
Still, it doesn't compete with simply pushing a shutter button.
There was at least one car maker here (forgot which, I think it was a French one), that offered EVs with leased batteries. You buy the car but rent the battery which gets replaced when needed.
That's the french Renault, for their Zoé line of cars. It's basically the same electric platform as Nissan (they worked together on this one) but with a Renault Twingo body bolted on it. (They also has electric bigger sedans and electric mini-vans, but I don't have experience with those).
The older modal had a 22kWh battery that was only available as a rental. It has an official range of 125km, (in my own experience, between 100 and 150 km depending on for conservative I drive which is far enough in densely populated Europe).
The new model has a 45kWh battery, that you can buy for ~8000 EUR together with the car or you can rent. Buying a new battery later costs 10'000 EUR (given that Renault plans to built battery factories, you can expect the price to eventually trop down in a few years). It has an official range of 250km (have no personal experience, the car sharing I'm using only have older 22kWh models).
Given the trend in phones, pretty soon there won't be electronic gear bigger than a mobile phone that still fits in the overhead bins.
Which measuring dimension are considering ?
Horizontal/Vertical width ? - Yeah pretty soon the huge plasma screen in your living room is going to be the only device bigger than a phone and that clearly can't be fit in your luggage.
Thickness/depth ? - Sorry man, soon even your cigarette rolling paper is going to be over the limit.
The US Government has powerful methods at it's disposal to enforce compliance, up to and including disconnection from the dollar banking system (aka the financial nuclear option).
and some institutions are completely fine with this, having enough other altenative options / big currencies. Euros, Rubles, etc.
US Dollars haven't been the only internationally relevant money for quite some time.
Depends on the decade and what part of Europe or the EU.
US law do not apply anywhere else except in the US, no matter what some think. What applies in countries in Europe, are international treaty that the have decided to adhere to and sign, and local regulation.
Go full Section 311 of the USA Patriot Act on anymore moving the funds around before, during or after interacting with anything "digital currencies". Select from never interacting with any bank or international banking network ever again or tell the US about people using any service.
It's a US law. It applies to the US. You cannot force - directly through government - a foreign institution to comply. The only way the US can force foreign institution to comply is by putting a tax on any transaction that they have with dollars. Or refuse to do interactions altogether with them.
Isolate the service and then any bank or nation that still interacts with that service.
...and some bank are completely happy with not doing any dollar transaction anymore and only transacting in Euros, Rubles, etc.
If you replicated this same study (rats in the labyrinth), then If the result (see the 15 out of 20 rats) was only due to random chance, with a p-value of 0.05, such result would only occur in 5% of attempt to replicate the experiment, i.e.: only 1 of 20 attempts to replicate the rat-in-the-lab would give results as skewed as 15 rats out of 20 by pure luck.
For the proposed threshold p-value of 0.005, such results could happen by random chance only in 0.5% attempts to replicate, i.e.: only 1 of 200 attempts to replicate the rat-in-the-lab would give results as skewed as 15 rats out of 20 by pure luck.
My opinion : meh... 5% or 1-in-20 seems to me good enough as long as other teams try to replicated the experiment. (Hence the Pearson quote)
the interesting stuff would then be the meta-studies : articles that try to review all that was published on some subject.
If you end-up with one lab-experiment giving you left turn at p-values, followed by 19 attempts to replicate that all ended up being negative, then you could consider the first to be a fluke.
But then, disclaimer : (Dr Bones voice) I am a doctor, Jim, not a statistician. I've also studied bio-informatics, but my first degree should be a huge red flags whenever I get to close to stats, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
Yup, and I think that's what causes most people to "full body shiver" : phrasings such as "my generals" make painfully aware that your orange troll with a twitter account *is* "the commander in chief" and "*his* generals" are indeed under *his* command.
Do they not buy albums and then listen to them? They have to stream it?
What's that funny shinny metallic disc ?
And how am I supposed to put it inside my Apple iGadget 8 ? I keep tapping it against the phone, but the bluetooth doesn't seem to react. Now my screen is scratched, and I'll need to complain about it on instagram (once I figure how to take a picture of the phone itself. I'll have to borrow a friend's phone)
Those discs remind me the thingy that my old uncle puts in he Microsoft Xbox 1080....
Well depending on what they eat, it could be enough (= if they dont all eat like westerner. otherwise you'll need 1-2 extra planets Earth just to feed everyone).
We need to get it down to a pre-explosion level and let other "species" reclaim a majority of the areas that we have expanded into in order stop the decline in biodiversity. There's nothing that indicates that that will happen.
...soon. There nothing that indicates that that will happen soon.
On the other hand, there are indicators that that will happen eventually :
in the developped western world, natality rate is falling under 2, sometime even under 1 (= not every couple have a kid at all). The population of several european countries only growse due to immigration. Not to born babies.
As they progress along their demographic transition, all the countries will eventually lower the number of babies each couple makes. And you'll eventually see negative population growth. At least if we are still around by then. If we've managed to wipe ourselves out by completely destroying the environment (and climate), then it's another story.
The part I'm not buying is "kids listening to radios". As if.
It's a shortcut.
The full story probably is :
Grand-pa and grand-ma are listening on their FM radio set (those thing still exist ? There are parts of Europe which haven't switched to DAB+ ?) suddenly they hear this song and panic.
Little Johny registers that there's a fuss big enough to have him lift his nose off "Angry Pokemon Crush" on his iDroid 7. He notice and makes association between the funny words that the radio sings and the interestingly impressive result on the grand parents.
He eventually begins to sing this bit to see if he can also cause the same mayhem : bingo !
- Indeed, there's no shortage of food, if your target is just to feed the population and keep it alive. The planet can more or less roughly procude enough food to keep everyone alive. We *currently* are not at risk of becoming Soylent Green movie.
- BUT if every single human being decided to eat as much (both in terms of volume, caloric intake, composition (meat vs. veggies), etc.) as the typical westerner, and use as much resource for everything else, you'd need about 3 planets earth worth of production to sustain the current population at that train of life.
GMOs only solve the cash problems of some corporations.
Which is exactly the topmost reason why I'm against GMO.
I'm not fundamentally against genetic tweaking (common, I'm working in lifescience research. I should pretty well know that we've been doing tweaking since the beginning of agriculture - just with way more lower tech tools. But one can see the difference between modern crops and their closest wild relatives).
I'm fundamentally against what is essentially a lock-in business by companies that managed to bring out the worst of IP rights. (Patents on life ? Common. That's a much against the fundamental idea of patents as you can be).
(Not to mention that over relying on the few commercially available GMO crops would increase the risks of monoculture).
In short : I'm not against GMO per se, I am against all the shit that current GMO companies are doing.
Remember WHERE and WHO is reproducing at an alarming pace. Just a hint: Not first world countries.
Depends if you add a "WHEN" question, then you hint gets completely wrong.
When meds and industrial agriculture where developed in what you now consider "First world countries", those pesky westerner also had a huge demographic explosion (because they kept their old habits of reproducing like rabbits on the ground that most of their children won't even reach adulthood). But eventually we got wiser and adapted.
And the same adaptation is currently happening in nearly most of these other countries you allude to. We'll never reach the initially predicted 25 billions. It's called DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSITION, and it's actually a thing, whether or not it surprise your bigoted xenophobic view of the world and all the people who happen to be different than you.
Another hint: If first world countries stopped sending food and meds there, the population growth would return to cabal limits.
Another hint: if we stopped selling food and meds to you, you'll probably turn into a raving survivalist cannibal savage in no time.
Surprisingly : No ! Some European jurisdiction have accepted, under some circumstances, that cyclists behave like with a "yield" sign (= no need to fully stop and put on foot on the ground, only to slow down), on the ground that bicycles are lighter and that cyclist can stop nearly immediately compared to cars, and on the ground that the bicycles are un powered (yeah, this dates back a bit...) and require more effort to re-accelerate.
Some Swiss cities have started accepting this (in case of stop or a red light at a right turn, when there's no traffic). (I'll have to dig the reference)
But again, that's when there's no traffic. The fact that you complain of such behaviour, means that when in happened, there was traffic (you, obviously) and it wouldn't have been accepted even in those cities.
Yes, you're required to signal before changing lanes or turning.
(Yes, that's entirely true. Though I'm the only one I know that actually hand-signals my turns).
No, you don't get to squeeze to the front of the line at stop lights.
Depends, in some driving codes, that's actually *mandatory*, and must be accomplished from the right side of the car lane only. (for bycicles. not for motorbikes)
New street are even painted accordingly. (A small buffer market with cycle sign where the bicycles are supposed to pool and wait together until the light switches green)
The logic behind this is : bicycles are considered a separate lane, even when there's not one painted on the ground. So they are just basically advancing to the end of their "virtual lane". Also security grounds (see them easier when they wait in front of you).
Saddly in practice here around you see the exact opposite : bicycles waiting somewhere in the middle of the queue because there no room on the right side. motorbikes over taking the whole queue (from the left !) and going to wait in front (= illegal).
No, you don't get to use the pedestrian crossings.
Actually yes, but the driver code requires you to dismount the bike first and walk pushing (you're then considered a pedestrian).
(Same even applies with motorbike : as long as you're dismounted and walking pushing, you're a pedestrian).
It's not the first time a study like this has been performed though. {...} Either they're all making the same fundamental mistakes or coffee really does help.
These specific 2 studies linked from TFS on/. specifically looked for association and nothing more. i.e.: you put some health marker on 1 axis (here: low incidence of cardio-vascular problems) and put coffee consumption on the 2nd axis, and then you notice that the data point line-up nicely, which (again for these 2 studies) only suggest that there is a link between the two (*a* link. Any link. Causality is just one possibility). these studies don't go beyond that, and clearly state this, even in the title and/or in the abstract. But the press is still spinning it as "Coffee proven to cure everything".
I'm not saying whether or not it's possible that coffee is some miracle cure.
The whole thread is just arguing that mere correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. I'm pointing that these article never even attempted to prove anything beyond statistical link.
Of course, there are *other* scientific articles about coffee, not only cohorts studies like these, but also analysis of potential mechanisms that could explain coffee actually causing health to benefit from drinking. (random example : presence of anti-oxidant in coffee)
Si it might be true that drinking coffee could under some specific circumstance be good for your health.
But today's article alone cannot *suggest* that - as implied in the title (that's the whole debate in this thread) and actually the study never attempted to suggest it.
It's self-sterilizing if we assume that life on Mars couldn't have found a way to deal with perchlorates. Extremophiles here on Earth demonstrate that life can evolve to survive in some pretty inhospitable and outright toxic environments.
So you think a delicate life form which has spent millions of years to adapt to a perchlorates chemical environment (again, theoretically possible given the extremophiles on Earth) in an extremely cold climate (water frozen most of the time), etc. would thrive magnificiently inside a moist water-based 37 C (~100 F ?) body ?!?
News flash: Your direct environment right here on Earth (like the dirt outside your house) is filled with countless species of bacteria which have adapted to it, and none of which bothers to infect you simply because they are optimized for outdoor conditions and not your body's entirely different set of conditions. Anything that has evolved and adapted to the even harsher conditions on Mars (it these exist, because for now we haven't found any. Then again, in *theory* it should be possible given earth's extremophiles) would be even further away from the human body conditions. It would *definitely* be completely out of its optimal conditions inside you. There's no realistic way you could credibly catch "The Mars Flu" and bring it back on Earth - unless mars way earth-like enough (it's not) so that life-form adapted to mars could find similar compatible environment on earth.
More specifically, why are OSes not designed, and computing hardware not designed, so that the GUI cannot be slowed down by other slow processes, process switching, or I/O / virtual memory thrashing.
That's why OSes such a Linux (not even over-optimized for responsivity) have an entire zoo of CPU schedulers and IO schedulers. (with BFQ being the latest popular IO scheduler for responsivity), and linux specifically has hte non-POSIX "CGROUPS" extension that enables it to arrange the various processes into a tree hierarchy with each node supporting its own scheduling tactics between its childern (see demos of 256 GCC compiler jobs launched in parallel and the GUI still being responive). (That's also part of the reasons why modern complex manager like systemd are getting popular, they have modules to handle all this : session, seats, etc. concepts that POSIX lacks)
BeOS was an OS whose entire purpose was exactly that : no matter what, keep UI responsive and avoid media stuttering. (Well, running initially on architecture with less expensive context switches did also help a lot).
The UI and user input devices should be a completely separate set of processes and memory than the rest of application processing.
Actually, in most OSes, they already are.
It should operate as a service, through data pipelines, to the rest of the applications.
That's a tiny bit less obvious. Some graphical tool-kits run their UI in the main thread. Some software would need to have the processing moved into a background thread or process.
WebApps are an obvious counter-exemple where the UI is an entirely different process (And depending on where the sever is executed - even different machine).
Or failing that, certain aspects of GUI, such as program kill controls, should be highly prioritized over pretty much everything else. Again, slow and over-used everything else should not slow the UI and user input processes.
And then you'd complain that any complex calculation (compression of a video) takes ages, because the process is constantly being interrupted to give time to your GUI and mouse (i.e.: to the various driver and daemons and libraries processing USB and/or Bluetooth) even if they don't need.
Balancing responsivity (i.e. constantly interrupting everything just to be sure that everyone get their share of CPU cycles and IO) and performance (running as much un-interrupted as possible so the task finishes as fast as possible) is a complex dark art.
But, yeah, Windows is significantly worse at this compared to everyone else.
Which also explains you'll never see any deployment of Windows on the TOP500 (it's nearly Linux all the way, with a few excption like BSD - i.e. other Unix-type of OSes), and Azure is the only known cloud running it. It's also why Linux is popular in most embed systems (modems, routers, smartphone, tons of IoT gizmos, smart TVs, etc. - basically nearly anything with a CPU that is not a desktop computer is likely to run some Unix-like kernel like Linux)
It's not that Linux is magic, it's that Windows is *THAT* awfully bad at anything.
Is there such a thing as firewalling or sandboxing a GPU for that?
Yes and no.
Yes, there's a possibility to firewall against hardware. - that's what IOMMU is for on modern processors. So hardware with DMA (Direct Memory Access. That can directly read the RAM e.g.: FireWire, Infiniband, 10Gigabit Ethernet, Thunderbolt, etc.) can be isolated and cannot be used to dump the whole PC memory (see earlier attack with FireWire RDMA on Windows). - modern GPU processors have even implemented their own MMU layer for additional fencing - so that 3D game that you've downloaded (or even WebGL and WebVulkan online game) doesn't secretely try to peek into other applications on your dekstop.
No, it won't help at all in the problem of scheduling. That's a software problem. The kernel is scheduling CPU cycles to thread wanting execution, and it scheduling access to resource for I/O requests by thread. It's the kernel job to decide when to interrupt one task to give access to another (either CPU cycles or I/O access). Knowing that interrupting more often give chance to other background task to work (gives better responsivity, even the mouse cursor gets the necessary cycles while a big computation is in progress) And knowing that keeping task uninterrupted lets them finish quicker (gives better performance).
Balancing this responsivity vs. performance is a complex dark art. Windows simply sucks at this.
This is even complicated by the fact that the modern mouse comunicates over USB or Bluetooth instead of PS/2 which are much more protocols with more component in the complex stacks that handle them. This requires even more time shares given to these component to make sure that the mouse moves responsively - while knowing that this will kill the performance.
Yup. Windows sucks at multi-processing. News at eleven.
REMINDER: - That's why on windows multi-threading is much more popular (there's a lot less to teardown when the context is shared). - That's part of reasons why microsoft developed the concept of pico-threads (way much more lightweight) so that Windows Service for Linux (WSL. aka Bash in Windows. aka Ubuntu in a terminal) could actually implement some decent multi-processing.
That's why most serious computer has since long shifted away to other OSes (see popularity of Linux among TOP500)
Slashdot Mirror
so, that means, at least 3 days, of 10 hours driving straight, with 1 hour pause for filling up (when you can have lunch)
This means that before and after lunch you drive 5 hours non-stop.
it does seem sensible...
to me, it sounds bordering to dangerous, unless you have multiple drivers and rotate them behind the wheel, so everyone get to drive a bit and rest a bit during one of these 5 hours stretch.
bexond 2 hours, you start to be really tired and lose concentration.
this is analogous to a button anyone can press.
The keyword here is not "anyone" but "press".
Please pay attention to the above posts, what the initial poster want is NOT universal access (so he can give the phone to anyone else to make the picture, without granting access to anything else in the phone).
Lots of smartphones, including iPhone, have special "different Swipes" that open the camera app straight without requiring the security pin or finger print.
What the poster wanted is to push down a shutter and immediately have a picture take, so he can take quick picture before the event interesting him finishes.
You just press the button and the picture is taken.
Sony smartphone have a dedicated hardware button that immediately takes the picture, mimicking the "immediateness" of pushing down a shutter.
Some smartphone (even non android one) do a little bit of button remapping so, as long as the camera app is running, you could immediately take a picture (but might lose the ability to set volume while the app is running due to limited amount of buttons)
iPhone needs you to swipe to start the camera app (or fully unlock it) and the touch an icon on the screen to take a picture. Yes, it could be done by "anyone" (your point), but it take a little bit more time than immediately pushing down a shutter button like on a real camera or the similar quickness of dedicated hardware button by Sony (and this speed is what interested the above poster so he doen't miss an interesting impromptu event)
Slide to the left.. Is that not unlocking?
Means that doing one type of slide "unlocks you" to the main menu interface.
While doing another type of slide will start the camera app (while not granting you access to anything else in the phone) - this even works if normal unlock requires a PIN or - as in recent iPhone - a fingerprint.
Still, it doesn't compete with simply pushing a shutter button.
There was at least one car maker here (forgot which, I think it was a French one), that offered EVs with leased batteries. You buy the car but rent the battery which gets replaced when needed.
That's the french Renault, for their Zoé line of cars.
It's basically the same electric platform as Nissan (they worked together on this one) but with a Renault Twingo body bolted on it.
(They also has electric bigger sedans and electric mini-vans, but I don't have experience with those).
The older modal had a 22kWh battery that was only available as a rental.
It has an official range of 125km, (in my own experience, between 100 and 150 km depending on for conservative I drive which is far enough in densely populated Europe).
The new model has a 45kWh battery, that you can buy for ~8000 EUR together with the car or you can rent.
Buying a new battery later costs 10'000 EUR (given that Renault plans to built battery factories, you can expect the price to eventually trop down in a few years).
It has an official range of 250km (have no personal experience, the car sharing I'm using only have older 22kWh models).
Given the trend in phones, pretty soon there won't be electronic gear bigger than a mobile phone that still fits in the overhead bins.
Which measuring dimension are considering ?
Horizontal/Vertical width ? - Yeah pretty soon the huge plasma screen in your living room is going to be the only device bigger than a phone and that clearly can't be fit in your luggage.
Thickness/depth ? - Sorry man, soon even your cigarette rolling paper is going to be over the limit.
The US Government has powerful methods at it's disposal to enforce compliance, up to and including disconnection from the dollar banking system (aka the financial nuclear option).
and some institutions are completely fine with this, having enough other altenative options / big currencies.
Euros, Rubles, etc.
US Dollars haven't been the only internationally relevant money for quite some time.
Depends on the decade and what part of Europe or the EU.
US law do not apply anywhere else except in the US, no matter what some think.
What applies in countries in Europe, are international treaty that the have decided to adhere to and sign,
and local regulation.
Go full Section 311 of the USA Patriot Act on anymore moving the funds around before, during or after interacting with anything "digital currencies".
Select from never interacting with any bank or international banking network ever again or tell the US about people using any service.
It's a US law. It applies to the US. You cannot force - directly through government - a foreign institution to comply.
The only way the US can force foreign institution to comply is by putting a tax on any transaction that they have with dollars.
Or refuse to do interactions altogether with them.
Isolate the service and then any bank or nation that still interacts with that service.
...and some bank are completely happy with not doing any dollar transaction anymore and only transacting in Euros, Rubles, etc.
Another way to put it into simpler term.
If you replicated this same study (rats in the labyrinth), then
If the result (see the 15 out of 20 rats) was only due to random chance, with a p-value of 0.05, such result would only occur in 5% of attempt to replicate the experiment, i.e.: only 1 of 20 attempts to replicate the rat-in-the-lab would give results as skewed as 15 rats out of 20 by pure luck.
For the proposed threshold p-value of 0.005, such results could happen by random chance only in 0.5% attempts to replicate, i.e.: only 1 of 200 attempts to replicate the rat-in-the-lab would give results as skewed as 15 rats out of 20 by pure luck.
My opinion :
meh... 5% or 1-in-20 seems to me good enough as long as other teams try to replicated the experiment.
(Hence the Pearson quote)
the interesting stuff would then be the meta-studies : articles that try to review all that was published on some subject.
If you end-up with one lab-experiment giving you left turn at p-values, followed by 19 attempts to replicate that all ended up being negative, then you could consider the first to be a fluke.
But then, disclaimer : (Dr Bones voice) I am a doctor, Jim, not a statistician.
I've also studied bio-informatics, but my first degree should be a huge red flags whenever I get to close to stats, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
He is commander in chief.
Yup, and I think that's what causes most people to "full body shiver" :
phrasings such as "my generals" make painfully aware that your orange troll with a twitter account *is* "the commander in chief" and "*his* generals" are indeed under *his* command.
sad~
Just unplug the goddamned thing and dole out small portions out as a reward.
Which seems to be the general policy of *any* service providers in the US, from what we hear over on this side of the atlantic pond...
Do they not buy albums and then listen to them? They have to stream it?
What's that funny shinny metallic disc ?
And how am I supposed to put it inside my Apple iGadget 8 ? I keep tapping it against the phone, but the bluetooth doesn't seem to react.
Now my screen is scratched, and I'll need to complain about it on instagram (once I figure how to take a picture of the phone itself. I'll have to borrow a friend's phone)
Those discs remind me the thingy that my old uncle puts in he Microsoft Xbox 1080....
A flattening out of the population isn't enough.
Well depending on what they eat, it could be enough (= if they dont all eat like westerner. otherwise you'll need 1-2 extra planets Earth just to feed everyone).
We need to get it down to a pre-explosion level and let other "species" reclaim a majority of the areas that we have expanded into in order stop the decline in biodiversity. There's nothing that indicates that that will happen.
...soon. There nothing that indicates that that will happen soon.
On the other hand, there are indicators that that will happen eventually :
in the developped western world, natality rate is falling under 2, sometime even under 1 (= not every couple have a kid at all).
The population of several european countries only growse due to immigration. Not to born babies.
As they progress along their demographic transition, all the countries will eventually lower the number of babies each couple makes.
And you'll eventually see negative population growth.
At least if we are still around by then.
If we've managed to wipe ourselves out by completely destroying the environment (and climate), then it's another story.
Liked the book way better, incidentally.
Then watch the director's cut.
Executives decided to completely re-do the ending for the theatrical cut after some focus group tests.
The part I'm not buying is "kids listening to radios". As if.
It's a shortcut.
The full story probably is :
Grand-pa and grand-ma are listening on their FM radio set (those thing still exist ? There are parts of Europe which haven't switched to DAB+ ?)
suddenly they hear this song and panic.
Little Johny registers that there's a fuss big enough to have him lift his nose off "Angry Pokemon Crush" on his iDroid 7.
He notice and makes association between the funny words that the radio sings and the interestingly impressive result on the grand parents.
He eventually begins to sing this bit to see if he can also cause the same mayhem : bingo !
There is no shortage of food.
Depends on how you consider the details :
- Indeed, there's no shortage of food, if your target is just to feed the population and keep it alive.
The planet can more or less roughly procude enough food to keep everyone alive.
We *currently* are not at risk of becoming Soylent Green movie.
- BUT if every single human being decided to eat as much (both in terms of volume, caloric intake, composition (meat vs. veggies), etc.) as the typical westerner, and use as much resource for everything else, you'd need about 3 planets earth worth of production to sustain the current population at that train of life.
GMOs only solve the cash problems of some corporations.
Which is exactly the topmost reason why I'm against GMO.
I'm not fundamentally against genetic tweaking (common, I'm working in lifescience research. I should pretty well know that we've been doing tweaking since the beginning of agriculture - just with way more lower tech tools. But one can see the difference between modern crops and their closest wild relatives).
I'm fundamentally against what is essentially a lock-in business by companies that managed to bring out the worst of IP rights.
(Patents on life ? Common. That's a much against the fundamental idea of patents as you can be).
(Not to mention that over relying on the few commercially available GMO crops would increase the risks of monoculture).
In short : I'm not against GMO per se, I am against all the shit that current GMO companies are doing.
Remember WHERE and WHO is reproducing at an alarming pace. Just a hint: Not first world countries.
Depends if you add a "WHEN" question, then you hint gets completely wrong.
When meds and industrial agriculture where developed in what you now consider "First world countries", those pesky westerner also had a huge demographic explosion (because they kept their old habits of reproducing like rabbits on the ground that most of their children won't even reach adulthood).
But eventually we got wiser and adapted.
And the same adaptation is currently happening in nearly most of these other countries you allude to. We'll never reach the initially predicted 25 billions.
It's called DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSITION, and it's actually a thing, whether or not it surprise your bigoted xenophobic view of the world and all the people who happen to be different than you.
Another hint: If first world countries stopped sending food and meds there, the population growth would return to cabal limits.
Another hint: if we stopped selling food and meds to you, you'll probably turn into a raving survivalist cannibal savage in no time.
Yes, stop signs apply to you too.
Surprisingly : No !
Some European jurisdiction have accepted, under some circumstances, that cyclists behave like with a "yield" sign (= no need to fully stop and put on foot on the ground, only to slow down), on the ground that bicycles are lighter and that cyclist can stop nearly immediately compared to cars, and on the ground that the bicycles are un powered (yeah, this dates back a bit...) and require more effort to re-accelerate.
Some Swiss cities have started accepting this (in case of stop or a red light at a right turn, when there's no traffic).
(I'll have to dig the reference)
But again, that's when there's no traffic. The fact that you complain of such behaviour, means that when in happened, there was traffic (you, obviously) and it wouldn't have been accepted even in those cities.
Yes, you're required to signal before changing lanes or turning.
(Yes, that's entirely true. Though I'm the only one I know that actually hand-signals my turns).
No, you don't get to squeeze to the front of the line at stop lights.
Depends, in some driving codes, that's actually *mandatory*, and must be accomplished from the right side of the car lane only.
(for bycicles. not for motorbikes)
New street are even painted accordingly.
(A small buffer market with cycle sign where the bicycles are supposed to pool and wait together until the light switches green)
The logic behind this is : bicycles are considered a separate lane, even when there's not one painted on the ground.
So they are just basically advancing to the end of their "virtual lane".
Also security grounds (see them easier when they wait in front of you).
Saddly in practice here around you see the exact opposite :
bicycles waiting somewhere in the middle of the queue because there no room on the right side.
motorbikes over taking the whole queue (from the left !) and going to wait in front (= illegal).
No, you don't get to use the pedestrian crossings.
Actually yes, but the driver code requires you to dismount the bike first and walk pushing (you're then considered a pedestrian).
(Same even applies with motorbike : as long as you're dismounted and walking pushing, you're a pedestrian).
Remember:
if you kill someone else while crashing your car when driving completely pissed,
you're disqualified from the Darwin Award.
ClamAV isnt on the list either
On the other hand, you don't need to buy ClamAV to be able to use it.
(Software is opensource, databases are freely available).
So it doesn't matter.
Whereas now, as a consequence of removing Kaspersky lab from the official list,
government entity interested in using it need to buy their own copies.
(That in addition of all the "removed because russian ties" negative publicity).
It's not the first time a study like this has been performed though. {...} Either they're all making the same fundamental mistakes or coffee really does help.
These specific 2 studies linked from TFS on /. specifically looked for association and nothing more.
i.e.: you put some health marker on 1 axis (here: low incidence of cardio-vascular problems) and put coffee consumption on the 2nd axis, and then you notice that the data point line-up nicely, which (again for these 2 studies) only suggest that there is a link between the two (*a* link. Any link. Causality is just one possibility).
these studies don't go beyond that, and clearly state this, even in the title and/or in the abstract.
But the press is still spinning it as "Coffee proven to cure everything".
I'm not saying whether or not it's possible that coffee is some miracle cure.
The whole thread is just arguing that mere correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.
I'm pointing that these article never even attempted to prove anything beyond statistical link.
Of course, there are *other* scientific articles about coffee, not only cohorts studies like these, but also analysis of potential mechanisms that could explain coffee actually causing health to benefit from drinking.
(random example : presence of anti-oxidant in coffee)
Si it might be true that drinking coffee could under some specific circumstance be good for your health.
But today's article alone cannot *suggest* that - as implied in the title
(that's the whole debate in this thread)
and actually the study never attempted to suggest it.
By loop, I assume you mean a magnifying glass{..}
Either the above poster is french-speaking or only uses less frequent english words.
It's self-sterilizing if we assume that life on Mars couldn't have found a way to deal with perchlorates. Extremophiles here on Earth demonstrate that life can evolve to survive in some pretty inhospitable and outright toxic environments.
So you think a delicate life form which has spent millions of years to adapt to a perchlorates chemical environment (again, theoretically possible given the extremophiles on Earth) in an extremely cold climate (water frozen most of the time), etc. would thrive magnificiently inside a moist water-based 37 C (~100 F ?) body ?!?
News flash: Your direct environment right here on Earth (like the dirt outside your house) is filled with countless species of bacteria which have adapted to it, and none of which bothers to infect you simply because they are optimized for outdoor conditions and not your body's entirely different set of conditions.
Anything that has evolved and adapted to the even harsher conditions on Mars (it these exist, because for now we haven't found any. Then again, in *theory* it should be possible given earth's extremophiles) would be even further away from the human body conditions. It would *definitely* be completely out of its optimal conditions inside you.
There's no realistic way you could credibly catch "The Mars Flu" and bring it back on Earth - unless mars way earth-like enough (it's not) so that life-form adapted to mars could find similar compatible environment on earth.
More specifically, why are OSes not designed, and computing hardware not designed, so that the GUI cannot be slowed down by other slow processes, process switching, or I/O / virtual memory thrashing.
That's why OSes such a Linux (not even over-optimized for responsivity) have an entire zoo of CPU schedulers and IO schedulers.
(with BFQ being the latest popular IO scheduler for responsivity),
and linux specifically has hte non-POSIX "CGROUPS" extension that enables it to arrange the various processes into a tree hierarchy with each node supporting its own scheduling tactics between its childern (see demos of 256 GCC compiler jobs launched in parallel and the GUI still being responive).
(That's also part of the reasons why modern complex manager like systemd are getting popular, they have modules to handle all this : session, seats, etc. concepts that POSIX lacks)
BeOS was an OS whose entire purpose was exactly that : no matter what, keep UI responsive and avoid media stuttering.
(Well, running initially on architecture with less expensive context switches did also help a lot).
The UI and user input devices should be a completely separate set of processes and memory than the rest of application processing.
Actually, in most OSes, they already are.
It should operate as a service, through data pipelines, to the rest of the applications.
That's a tiny bit less obvious. Some graphical tool-kits run their UI in the main thread.
Some software would need to have the processing moved into a background thread or process.
WebApps are an obvious counter-exemple where the UI is an entirely different process (And depending on where the sever is executed - even different machine).
Or failing that, certain aspects of GUI, such as program kill controls, should be highly prioritized over pretty much everything else.
Again, slow and over-used everything else should not slow the UI and user input processes.
And then you'd complain that any complex calculation (compression of a video) takes ages, because the process is constantly being interrupted to give time to your GUI and mouse (i.e.: to the various driver and daemons and libraries processing USB and/or Bluetooth) even if they don't need.
Balancing responsivity (i.e. constantly interrupting everything just to be sure that everyone get their share of CPU cycles and IO) and performance (running as much un-interrupted as possible so the task finishes as fast as possible) is a complex dark art.
But, yeah, Windows is significantly worse at this compared to everyone else.
Which also explains you'll never see any deployment of Windows on the TOP500 (it's nearly Linux all the way, with a few excption like BSD - i.e. other Unix-type of OSes), and Azure is the only known cloud running it.
It's also why Linux is popular in most embed systems (modems, routers, smartphone, tons of IoT gizmos, smart TVs, etc. - basically nearly anything with a CPU that is not a desktop computer is likely to run some Unix-like kernel like Linux)
It's not that Linux is magic, it's that Windows is *THAT* awfully bad at anything.
Is there such a thing as firewalling or sandboxing a GPU for that?
Yes and no.
Yes, there's a possibility to firewall against hardware.
- that's what IOMMU is for on modern processors.
So hardware with DMA (Direct Memory Access. That can directly read the RAM e.g.: FireWire, Infiniband, 10Gigabit Ethernet, Thunderbolt, etc.) can be isolated and cannot be used to dump the whole PC memory (see earlier attack with FireWire RDMA on Windows).
- modern GPU processors have even implemented their own MMU layer for additional fencing - so that 3D game that you've downloaded (or even WebGL and WebVulkan online game) doesn't secretely try to peek into other applications on your dekstop.
No, it won't help at all in the problem of scheduling.
That's a software problem.
The kernel is scheduling CPU cycles to thread wanting execution, and it scheduling access to resource for I/O requests by thread.
It's the kernel job to decide when to interrupt one task to give access to another (either CPU cycles or I/O access).
Knowing that interrupting more often give chance to other background task to work (gives better responsivity, even the mouse cursor gets the necessary cycles while a big computation is in progress)
And knowing that keeping task uninterrupted lets them finish quicker (gives better performance).
Balancing this responsivity vs. performance is a complex dark art.
Windows simply sucks at this.
This is even complicated by the fact that the modern mouse comunicates over USB or Bluetooth instead of PS/2 which are much more protocols with more component in the complex stacks that handle them.
This requires even more time shares given to these component to make sure that the mouse moves responsively - while knowing that this will kill the performance.
Not a program, a process.
Yup.
Windows sucks at multi-processing. News at eleven.
REMINDER:
- That's why on windows multi-threading is much more popular (there's a lot less to teardown when the context is shared).
- That's part of reasons why microsoft developed the concept of pico-threads (way much more lightweight) so that Windows Service for Linux (WSL. aka Bash in Windows. aka Ubuntu in a terminal) could actually implement some decent multi-processing.
That's why most serious computer has since long shifted away to other OSes (see popularity of Linux among TOP500)