"The [act of malicious government] hit computers in the... health-care sector particularly hard, compromising systems that perform critical work. These disruptions put lives at risk."
Hey, look, just like the current Republican tax atrocity and Trump's interference with the operation of the ACA.
And probably more CO2 than making from natural gas, because it takes a lot of energy to split water molecules.
Wrong. Collecting and utilizing solar energy to split water does not release CO2. This would be the ideal way to do it, if it actually needed to be done.
But it doesn't. It's irrelevant, because hydrogen has other problems - transport, storage - that are by all indications insurmountable.
Also known as the most energy intensive way of creating hydrogen.
Wait for daylight. Look up. See that bright, hot, yellowish thing up there? Energy supply is not in any way an insurmountable problem. We're outright awash in free energy supply.
However, energy storage and transport are actual problems. And hydrogen is a case where both of those come home to roost in a most uncompromising manner.
The only answer available from our repertoire of current technology that shows the potential to address all of the actual problems in the relatively short term is the EV using battery storage; hydrogen, in any form (fuel tank, fuel cell, etc.) hasn't got the characteristics to be a serious contender, nor is there any present indication in materials science that it ever will. It's a bad bet.
But not to worry. No one's going to use hydrogen in any serious way. The transport and storage issues are a brick wall.
The tech that's going to be transformative here is either batteries with a decent lifecycle and energy density (neither of which are really quite there yet in commercially available batteries, anyway), or ultracaps, which already have the lifecycle absolutely covered, but aren't even close in terms of energy density.
Procreation is essential to the survival of any species, yet homosexuality precludes those individuals from doing so.
No, it doesn't. Homosexuality indicates that they enjoy sexual activity with the same sex. It doesn't mean they can't procreate, or that they won't. Nor does it mean that the homosexual cannot, or will not, adopt. If they are prevented from adopting, that's a social issue — not a sexual one.
Turn in your Vulcan card as you leave the building, thanks for playing. There's a helpful novitiate at the door who will help you pull T'Pau's boot from your nethers.
If I wanted to listen to music in mono to get your much lauded extra range I'd just listen to AM in the first place.
You would not be hearing even remotely the same thing. AM fidelity is considerably less than FM fidelity. Even stereo AM, be it CQUAM or otherwise. Not to mention it being much more vulnerable to interference and so forth.
You can certainly choose not to listen. But that doesn't mean the preconceptions you are guiding yourself with are true. And, actual protip: they aren't.
All your fancy talk means nothing if I am less frustrated by the quality and range of DAB+ over FM.
He who is satisfied with less may simply be unaware that there is more. Or be unwilling (often a result of confirmation bias) or unable to appreciate it. Seeing as how you are completely in the wrong here, clearly you are suffering from something along those lines. Fixing it is up to you, though. The world will not care if you do or don't, but you can benefit yourself from moving to a fact-based POV.
Here, the range just above the FM broadcast band is available; it was just cleared out of analog television.
That's where our digital FM ought to go - they have to make new receivers anyway, might as well put them up there where they don't screw up everything.
I take it you're still keeping the high analog television channels over there?
FM is already to intermittent and noisy to be of any use at the point where DAB+ becomes silent.
That's flat-out nonsense.
You can have a perfectly steady FM signal at low levels with a constant noise level - and a pretty low one at that if you keep the stereo decoding off - at ranges where digital signals are flat-out gone due to high error rates. And it's not just range - multipath will eat digital signals for lunch (that's reflections off buildings, etc.)
So how do I know? I write SDR software. I deal with this stuff directly, meaning, I write the demodulators and the rest of the signal processing chain. I get better performance than any FM tuner you ever heard of; so I know the range tradeoff for digital is severe. I have RF recordings of many examples. They can be played back, (re—)demodulated, and A:b comparisons made at the drop of a hat. There's no doubt about it: FM analog is superior for use other than local. Likewise the atrocity that is AM digital, IBOC. Quite aside from blowing out two AM channels besides the one the station is actually on, it suffers from the same range and decode fragility that FM digital does.
These are really bad ideas: for services like this, new bands should be allocated rather than shitting all over the existing ones.
I still don't know why cars need their own cellular service rather than just tethering off the phone that nearly everyone has inside the car.
A cellphone inside the car body has only a fraction of the receive sensitivity of a system with a proper antenna mounted outside the vehicle. Transmit suffers likewise. So the answer as to why is "way better performance."
There is a huge gulf between those who qualify for medicaid, and those who do not. It is a pernicious and disingenuous myth that everyone who needs healthcare can get it.
In the USA you just show up at ER and don't pay if you don't have a med plan and they can't turn you away.
The ER has to try to stabilize you. They don't have to provide needed treatment beyond that, or drugs — and they won't. What they will do is determine what will stabilize you, do that, give you perhaps one dose of whatever prescription(s) is(are) needed which you can then go get from a pharmacy if you can pay for it, and refer you to a doctor, who you can also go to if you can pay for it, and that's the end of it.
You have cancer? Diabetes? A hernia? You're not going to get the treatment you need for that at the ER. Period. The ER does things that are specific to the moment, like set a broken arm. Still, you get to pay for the meds, and any follow-up care.
ER visits are not even remotely comparable to appropriate medical care for anything serious. People who claim it is have no idea what they are talking about.
I allow for my lack of skill (and possibly overcompensate), and don't do anything likely to cause an accident.
An important facet of the task is to be aware enough of other drivers to avoid the accident they are about to cause. Drunks, sleepyheads, lane weavers, light runners, ghosters that cluelessly drive in other people's blind spots (not just yours, either) tailgaters, fail-to-signalers, aggressive speeders, lane laggards, people pulling trailers too fast, poorly loaded, etc. And then there are road hazards. And people who completely change their driving style the instant they see a cop or their radar detector goes off. And cars carrying poorly disciplined children or excitable pets. People having arguments.
Most drivers are not very good. They may think they are - but they aren't.
Order-taking is half the interface with the customer. In many restaurants, it involves the customer waiting to have their order taken. Automating this part of the process provides a real feeling of getting things going much faster than waiting in line or at a table without having yet gotten anything done. Then there's the issue of the order-taker having gotten the order right.
For example, McDonalds curbside / online ordering allows you to "favorite" items you like to order, including custom variations like no mustard, extra pickles, etc. This further streamlines the ordering process, reduces errors, and (of course) pleases customers. You can also have the order ready to go, drive up to the curbside slot, and send it immediately, further reducing friction.
Reducing friction — or even apparently reducing friction — at this juncture tends to lead directly to higher customer satisfaction. That in turn leads to more sales.
Right now, that leads to more work. That won't last, because all of these jobs will eventually be automated away. The kind of automation we're talking about here isn't the kind of automation that is the real concern. This phase of the process has simply changed from the employee driving it to the customer driving it: they moved the interface to the customer in a way that actually works and makes them happier.
As the actual food delivery to the store, inventory management, prep, delivery, cleaning and maintenance fall to automation, that is when you'll see human employment in these restaurants fall. We're simply not there yet.
Best not to confuse the one process with the other.
If your driving skills are 40% better than average, you might come out ahead by driving yourself.
Those with such skills likely know it —it's a pretty low bar. Most people drive terribly. The number of drivers who have an intuitive, as-you-go grasp of the physics of the process, a real feel for the road surface and its bank, sightlines and so on, fine tuned abilities to estimate distance and speed and closure... they're not likely users of Tesla's autopilot (or anyone else's) anyway, because they are also probably members of the class who really enjoy driving.
My SO almost never gets to drive... she knows better than to take away my fun.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Thin... or like a trashcan.
Hey, look, just like the current Republican tax atrocity and Trump's interference with the operation of the ACA.
Wrong. Collecting and utilizing solar energy to split water does not release CO2. This would be the ideal way to do it, if it actually needed to be done.
But it doesn't. It's irrelevant, because hydrogen has other problems - transport, storage - that are by all indications insurmountable.
Wait for daylight. Look up. See that bright, hot, yellowish thing up there? Energy supply is not in any way an insurmountable problem. We're outright awash in free energy supply.
However, energy storage and transport are actual problems. And hydrogen is a case where both of those come home to roost in a most uncompromising manner.
The only answer available from our repertoire of current technology that shows the potential to address all of the actual problems in the relatively short term is the EV using battery storage; hydrogen, in any form (fuel tank, fuel cell, etc.) hasn't got the characteristics to be a serious contender, nor is there any present indication in materials science that it ever will. It's a bad bet.
Or, you know, water. Which releases.... oxygen.
But not to worry. No one's going to use hydrogen in any serious way. The transport and storage issues are a brick wall.
The tech that's going to be transformative here is either batteries with a decent lifecycle and energy density (neither of which are really quite there yet in commercially available batteries, anyway), or ultracaps, which already have the lifecycle absolutely covered, but aren't even close in terms of energy density.
No, it doesn't. Homosexuality indicates that they enjoy sexual activity with the same sex. It doesn't mean they can't procreate, or that they won't. Nor does it mean that the homosexual cannot, or will not, adopt. If they are prevented from adopting, that's a social issue — not a sexual one.
Turn in your Vulcan card as you leave the building, thanks for playing. There's a helpful novitiate at the door who will help you pull T'Pau's boot from your nethers.
You would not be hearing even remotely the same thing. AM fidelity is considerably less than FM fidelity. Even stereo AM, be it CQUAM or otherwise. Not to mention it being much more vulnerable to interference and so forth.
You can certainly choose not to listen. But that doesn't mean the preconceptions you are guiding yourself with are true. And, actual protip: they aren't.
He who is satisfied with less may simply be unaware that there is more. Or be unwilling (often a result of confirmation bias) or unable to appreciate it. Seeing as how you are completely in the wrong here, clearly you are suffering from something along those lines. Fixing it is up to you, though. The world will not care if you do or don't, but you can benefit yourself from moving to a fact-based POV.
Cheers.
You truly have no idea what you're talking about.
Here, the range just above the FM broadcast band is available; it was just cleared out of analog television.
That's where our digital FM ought to go - they have to make new receivers anyway, might as well put them up there where they don't screw up everything.
I take it you're still keeping the high analog television channels over there?
That's flat-out nonsense.
You can have a perfectly steady FM signal at low levels with a constant noise level - and a pretty low one at that if you keep the stereo decoding off - at ranges where digital signals are flat-out gone due to high error rates. And it's not just range - multipath will eat digital signals for lunch (that's reflections off buildings, etc.)
So how do I know? I write SDR software. I deal with this stuff directly, meaning, I write the demodulators and the rest of the signal processing chain. I get better performance than any FM tuner you ever heard of; so I know the range tradeoff for digital is severe. I have RF recordings of many examples. They can be played back, (re—)demodulated, and A:b comparisons made at the drop of a hat. There's no doubt about it: FM analog is superior for use other than local. Likewise the atrocity that is AM digital, IBOC. Quite aside from blowing out two AM channels besides the one the station is actually on, it suffers from the same range and decode fragility that FM digital does.
These are really bad ideas: for services like this, new bands should be allocated rather than shitting all over the existing ones.
A cellphone inside the car body has only a fraction of the receive sensitivity of a system with a proper antenna mounted outside the vehicle. Transmit suffers likewise. So the answer as to why is "way better performance."
There is a huge gulf between those who qualify for medicaid, and those who do not. It is a pernicious and disingenuous myth that everyone who needs healthcare can get it.
The ER has to try to stabilize you. They don't have to provide needed treatment beyond that, or drugs — and they won't. What they will do is determine what will stabilize you, do that, give you perhaps one dose of whatever prescription(s) is(are) needed which you can then go get from a pharmacy if you can pay for it, and refer you to a doctor, who you can also go to if you can pay for it, and that's the end of it.
You have cancer? Diabetes? A hernia? You're not going to get the treatment you need for that at the ER. Period. The ER does things that are specific to the moment, like set a broken arm. Still, you get to pay for the meds, and any follow-up care.
ER visits are not even remotely comparable to appropriate medical care for anything serious. People who claim it is have no idea what they are talking about.
You're claiming to define the limits of a prospective technology you've never laid hands upon, because it does not yet exist.
This is precisely like a caveman trying to explain the nature of the telephone.
This will only lead to a lot of people learning to speak with a Scottish accent.
IMHO, self-aware just means being able to examine some internal states and store or report that information.
"Thermostat, what's the current temperature?" :: "72 degrees" - that's self-aware. It just isn't much of a self.
Even adding "able to modify internal states based on examining them" is something more than self-awareness.
Self-aware is not the same as "conscious." Consciousness implies assigning internally conceived meaning to, and abstract manipulation of, such states.
Two pops and one push. Or two pushes and one pop.
An important facet of the task is to be aware enough of other drivers to avoid the accident they are about to cause. Drunks, sleepyheads, lane weavers, light runners, ghosters that cluelessly drive in other people's blind spots (not just yours, either) tailgaters, fail-to-signalers, aggressive speeders, lane laggards, people pulling trailers too fast, poorly loaded, etc. And then there are road hazards. And people who completely change their driving style the instant they see a cop or their radar detector goes off. And cars carrying poorly disciplined children or excitable pets. People having arguments.
Most drivers are not very good. They may think they are - but they aren't.
So, given that we have Slashdot, and we have Google, and we have NASA, which part of this process would you like to see go away?
Slashdot telling us about it?
NASA telling slashdot about it?
NASA hunting for planets?
Google helping NASA with sponsor money?
No, it most certainly isn't.
Order-taking is half the interface with the customer. In many restaurants, it involves the customer waiting to have their order taken. Automating this part of the process provides a real feeling of getting things going much faster than waiting in line or at a table without having yet gotten anything done. Then there's the issue of the order-taker having gotten the order right.
For example, McDonalds curbside / online ordering allows you to "favorite" items you like to order, including custom variations like no mustard, extra pickles, etc. This further streamlines the ordering process, reduces errors, and (of course) pleases customers. You can also have the order ready to go, drive up to the curbside slot, and send it immediately, further reducing friction.
Reducing friction — or even apparently reducing friction — at this juncture tends to lead directly to higher customer satisfaction. That in turn leads to more sales.
Right now, that leads to more work. That won't last, because all of these jobs will eventually be automated away. The kind of automation we're talking about here isn't the kind of automation that is the real concern. This phase of the process has simply changed from the employee driving it to the customer driving it: they moved the interface to the customer in a way that actually works and makes them happier.
As the actual food delivery to the store, inventory management, prep, delivery, cleaning and maintenance fall to automation, that is when you'll see human employment in these restaurants fall. We're simply not there yet.
Best not to confuse the one process with the other.
May I fork your version of the theory? I'd just like to take a stab at it, if I may. Pretty sure I can handle it.
Exactly right. It's an oblate spheroid.
I think if you turn the phone on, they know where you are. If you don't turn the phone on, why do you own one?
You can't have "they can't track me" and "I use the phone" both, that's all.
Those with such skills likely know it —it's a pretty low bar. Most people drive terribly. The number of drivers who have an intuitive, as-you-go grasp of the physics of the process, a real feel for the road surface and its bank, sightlines and so on, fine tuned abilities to estimate distance and speed and closure... they're not likely users of Tesla's autopilot (or anyone else's) anyway, because they are also probably members of the class who really enjoy driving.
My SO almost never gets to drive... she knows better than to take away my fun. :)