a bra doesn't reveal any more than any bikini top does.
I suspect you're just not very familiar with nice bras. There are other interesting variations on bra design as well. Many of them are quite sensual. Go to google, make sure the nanny safe search is off, enter "transparent lace bra" as the search term, and then click on "Images."
Very few sightings of bikinis will look like that.
And then there are the metal / chain bras. Kill the safesearch, use "chain bra OR bralette", search, the click images.
You can search "cupless bra" as well for something a bit different.
There are definitely some interesting looks out there that leave most bikinis in the dust.
If you're really lucky, you'll hook up with someone who knows to wear them, too.:)
CBS refused to offer numbers, but did boast that Discovery's debut lead to the highest number of sign-ups in the history of its All Access service.
I signed up. I watched the premiere. It was terrible. That was the end of my signup.
I don't know WTF is wrong with having a damned science advisor on the production team, and listening to them. But apparently there is something wrong with it. Because they either didn't have one, or they didn't listen to them, either of which is deadly for producing something that purports to be SF.
I'll grant you that trek has always been some kind of broken, science-wise, but this version, the premiere anyway, was near maximum suck.
And then there were the long angsty conversations in the captain's ready room when there was a bloody emergency going on.
It's not as if the world has only Mac OS Intel based laptops.
Yes, but that's not the solution - that's one of the problems. OS X (MacOS now, sigh) and the applications that run under it are a huge part of why people use these machines. It's not as simple as just offering non-Mac upgradable hardware. When that offer includes "abandon everything you have and start over", then it's not the same proposition at all as "buy a new Mac." If it's "make an unsupported 'Hackintosh'", it's still not much better because the potential for things to go much more wrong without recourse remains.
They confirmed earlier this year their intent to reboot (pun not intended) the Mac Pro line by releasing a new design for the Mac Pro in 2018 that focuses on modularity.
Yes, we will see what that actually means. Technically speaking, the trashcan is "modular", inasmuch as you can connect modules to it (all over your desk.) That was a terrible idea. It remains to be determined if they're willing to admit that and fix it, or if they're going to keep doing "courageous" things to their users without lube. Recent idiocy like removing the 3.5mm audio jack does not bode well for future design decisions.
In their discussion, they were mostly talking about how the design was thermally limited and that bit them in the GPU / CPU upgrade path. Of course, that was stupid too, but if that's the only focus, and they still think cables everywhere is a "good" idea, then we're back to square one: the only good Mac Pro is a pre-trashcan mac pro.
Drives, memory, graphics and other cards - all of these need to be secure inside a sturdy, upgradable and serviceable chassis. Short of that, the pooch has been well and truly screwed, and the PC makers will eat the market.
For now, WRT the phone, turn off your WiFi, use data, and keep the "media" uproar to a minimum unless you have an unlimited data plan. That means no video, no music, no heavy pages, etc. unless you're willing to eat your data allowance pretty quick (that assumes you've been using wifi to keep from stuffing your phone provider's pockets.)
In any event, watch your data consumption. Overages are a cash cow. And you are the cow.
WRT your home system, use ethernet, and turn off wifi until / unless you know you've got the right level of patch / amelioration.
The problem is not the Internet. The problem is wifi. So get off wifi.
It's difficult to know what's in store for the future of AI
That's right, at least
but let's tackle the most looming question first: are engineering jobs threatened?
Already answered correctly
As anticlimactic as it may be, the answer is entirely dependent on what timeframe you are talking about.
No, we don't know anything about the timeframe.
In the next decade? No, entirely unlikely. Eventually? Most definitely.
No, still an unknown. That's just nonsense.
The kicker is that engineers never truly know how the computer is able to accomplish these tasks.
We don't know how we accomplish these tasks. Nothing to see here. Intelligence is opaque. Move along.
In many ways, the neural operations of the AI system are a black box.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but neural networks are not intelligent, they are not even close, and we don't even know how they work. There's no indication that we understand actual intelligence yet (the I in AI) or even that we ever will, even if we manage to develop it.
Programmers, therefore, become the AI coaches.
Not a given. No one taught me to program. I taught myself. Because I'm intelligent to some degree. An AI will also be intelligent, and if it's interested in learning to program, it will be able to do so without a "coach." If it can't, there is no "I."
They coach cars to self-drive, coach computers to recognise faces in photos, coach your smartphone to detect handwriting on a check in order to deposit electronically, and so on.
These are LDNLS (low-dimensional neural-like-systems); they are not AI. They learn to solve very narrow problem spaces by making very large numbers of mistakes and having them evaluated for them; they can't evaluate their own results worth a damn. They are not intelligent. That's why they need point-by-point training before they can address a very narrow problem space with something vaguely approaching generality: they can't train themselves because they are not intelligent.
In fact, the possibilities of AI and machine learning are limitless.
As far as the LDNLS we have now (and so can speak about with any authority), that's not a given either. The obvious is that we'll be able to train multiple LDNLS systems on multiple things and stack them - for instance, walking, talking, listening, washing dishes, taking out the trash, those sort of skills - but there's not much in the way of any hint that there are no limits in this kind of LDNLS stacking. Having said that, no doubt it'll be very useful to us, and as there's no intelligence involved, there are many fewer moral issues to contend with.
The capabilities of AI through machine learning are wondrous, magnificent... and not going away.
Well. Barring a Carrington event, or a nuclear war, or other collapse of technology and society (either one will immediately cause the other.) So that's probably right-ish. Still, they aren't AI, not even close.
Attempts to apply artificial intelligence to programming tasks have resulted in further developments in knowledge and automated reasoning. Therefore, programmers must redefine their roles.
No, we don't know that this reasoning is solid - these things don't necessarily follow. Programmers can continue to be programmers right up until a system is activated that can train itself, because programming in realm A tends to be vastly unlike programming in realm B, and also tends to require vastly different sets of adjacent and supplementary knowledge. These systems, to date, cannot leverage or manipulate knowledge like that and
A company of mine used to develop for the Amiga. We did several different types of software and various bits of hardware. We were quite successful in the Amiga context right up until Commodore folded, at which point we switched to Windows and continued our run for many years. During the Amiga years we used to say:
If Commodore owned the Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise, they would market it as "Lukewarm dead bird."
After the Amiga years, we'd just roll our eyes and twitch a bit.
I wonder if they corrected for where the birds were collected. Population density was far lower then, and perhaps the soot was heavier, but also more local.
Intuitively speaking, I have trouble with the idea that the air all over the USA a century ago was more polluted than what I experienced in and around the 1970's, when the very rain was killing vegetation, the Delaware and other rivers ran with suds and rainbow slicks, and large areas of New Jersey were swamps of outright pollution.
The air was worse back then? Locally, sure. Like what happened to London England. But everything? Seems dubious. Very.
Oh, and you could also opt for a higher-capacity aftermarket battery and back.
You can do that with pretty much every modern phone as well if you're happy with the extra bulk. It's called trade-offs. They haven't changed in last 20 years.
Yes, they have changed. You're just not paying attention. My S3 had a removable back, and buying an aftermarket extra-capacity battery for it was exactly as difficult as visiting Amazon for five minutes. My S7 does not have a removable back, and I can't get at the battery. Many other brands also now sport non-removable backs and non-replacable batteries. This is the trend. Why are you unaware of the trend?
There's more than one phone on the market. I certainly still have a 3.5mm audio jack.
Yes, so do I - I have an S7. However, the new phones from Google and Apple do not. Again, this is a significant change in strategy. Why are you unaware of this?
best of all, thanks to the wonders of modern battery life, you don't actually need it.
I assume you were at least trying to make a point, but I'm not seeing it. Long battery life doesn't make the requirement for a dongle go away to restore the missing functionality. What does battery life have to do with not needing a 3.5mm phone jack?
At least that way we wouldn't have to put up with your undiagnosed clinical depression, dismissing the wonders of the modern world and not appreciating anything you have.
Using DGPS, they have millimeter resolution, and can ID the individual teeth on your necklace AND the ones in your mouth, and figure out which ones are really you by the alignment to the dead RF spot your faraday cage creates. Then the black helicopters bounces an IR laser off you in case they decide to guide smart weapons in. And that, of course, is simply a matter of where and what you post. In fact, I really shouldn't be postin
15 years ago I certainly didn't have 3Ah battery capable of being charged in 30min and only 4mm thick sitting in my pocket.
To be fair, you also didn't have a phone that was so thin it needed one, so power-hungry it needed one, and you could actually replace the battery if you needed to so it wasn't an outright horror if it couldn't make it through the day. Oh, and you could also opt for a higher-capacity aftermarket battery and back. You know, because the battery was replaceable.
Welcome to the future, where "better" means "we milk the consumer ever harder."
Also, goodbye 3.5mm audio jack. You won't be needing that. Here, have this nice profitable dongle instead - signed Apple, and now Google.
Actually I would say at more like 450 miles of real world driving is the most you can drive in a day without doing a driver change before you become dangerous on the road due to tiredness.
The speed limit here is 80 mph. 450 miles is just under six hours of actual driving when you keep to the limit (and a lot of people drive a few mph faster.) Which will be interspersed with food stops at the very least.
Also, people are different. Your and my personal safe driving range really doesn't define the same thing for everyone else. For myself, I have vehicles I really enjoy driving, a companion who engages me in interesting conversation, a great entertainment system, and an abiding interest in both scenery and people-watching. Someone else may lack some or all of that.
That is exactly my position as to the legitimate state of affairs (which is not to say, sane), because that's what the 2A says, and it hasn't gotten the attention it needs to reflect the present circumstances.
The problem here specifically with that issue is the constitution should have been amended long ago. Instead, they skipped the proper process and screwed us on every other front they could using the same "because we need/want to today" rationale. And they'll keep doing exactly that until/unless we get after this the right way.
The reality at the moment is that there is a huge amount of law that should never have been made, but the fact is that law is here now and it isn't even slightly likely to go away. So I'm not particularly worried that the constitution does, in fact, authorize keeping and carrying of arms in general. We're well past that.
What I personally would prefer is that the constitution be amended to reflect the current realities in arms. I think it really needs to be done. Nuclear and biological and chemical arms are all stand-up examples of why this needs to be done, quite aside from the issue of guns in the people's hands. The present laws, without a proper constitutional foundation, keep those things illegal, but in the process, they screw us on many other fronts - and that is in no way a good thing.
2A: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I don't really care about owning guns one way or another, but I do care when the government just ignores the constitution, and when it makes up sophist nonsense in order to jump some particular constitutional shark.
The problem with all this gun law nonsense, is that congress and the legislators of the states create laws that are grievously in violation of the 2nd amendment, and in doing so, they establish the foundation for similarly sophist malfuckery which they then apply to many other aspects of the constitution with a perfectly straight face.
Here's what I say to the "no guns" minded:
Push for a modification to the constitution that does what you want, and see if you can get that done. This will both somewhat re-establish the people's understanding that there is an obligation of the government to actually obey the thing, and so, potentially at least, protect what little of the bill of rights that hasn't yet been eroded by lawyers and legislators and judges and similar rodentia.
Yelling make a law is exactly the wrong thing to do. Darned near every gun law that doesn't deal directly with someone whose rights have been officially abbreviated due to a conviction for a crime is 100% straight-up illegal. "Shall not be infringed" means that when the government infringes - they're in violation of the very document that authorizes their existence.
Please stop encouraging the government to do that. If you think the constitution needs updating, then by all means, get after that. But stop calling for laws that ignore it. Please.
No moving parts, everything is solid state, and if one has an on-grid system, there are no batteries to have to keep watered or replaced.
Out on the bleeding edge, you can already build electrical storage that is maintenance-free, and does not require grid connection. I built a pilot installation for my radio trailer - I'm a ham operator - where the storage is entirely ultracap based. I've got enough out there to provide about as much power as two 110 AH car batteries, which is more than enough to run the three LED lights in the trailer and my 265 watt consume / 100 watt output (on transmit only, it's about 10 watts consumption on receive) radio. I mostly listen, so that's an excellent consumption to supply ratio.
One of the thing that many people don't appreciate about standard solar panels is that they produce energy on cloudy days, albeit a reduced amount; my system never, ever goes down, because there is sufficient capacity to keep it up as compared to the amount of use it gets.
In the future, I expect the cost of ultracaps to come down considerably, and if that happens, the whole battery issue will go right out the window. Ultracaps have very long lifetimes, just as solar panels do. They're not nearly as toxic, either.
For now, I freely admit up front that the cost to do this was not something that is practical for a large installation, such as that which would be required to run a home with a typical 10 KW electrical service. You'd need a lot of panels and a lot of ultracaps (ultracaps are presently at about 10%-20% of energy storage as compared to a comparable size / weight bank of batteries.) However, that 10 KW service is almost always that large to deal with surge demands, rather than constant demand, and that means that you'd need fewer panels overall. The ultracaps are actually far better at delivering surge power than either the grid or batteries, so that cost is only about what you use on average, not peak usage. The converter (ultracaps have a very different discharge curve than batteries do, and require dedicated electronics to produce a steady output comparable to batteries), however, still has to handle the peaks.
I'll give the browser makers more credit when they stop websites from opening a huge opaque overlay over something I just started to read.
Although I've blacklisted every website that does that I've hit so far, and don't see it so often any longer.
We're starting to see some backlash, though. Preventing auto-play videos, invasive-unasked-for sound... those are great browser fixes.
Oh, they can't monetize my visit without my cooperation? I really don't care.:)
I still support websites that behave reasonably. I subscribe to Soylent, for instance. Used to describe to Slashdot, but after years of no improvements at all and considerable degradation of the site, I figured I could do something more useful with the fee, minor as it is. At least the people over at Soylent are trying to do a good job.
Earlier experiments used a partition to separate the left and right visual fields. One experiment I recall reading about was done like this: On one side of the partition they would place an implement, such as a fork. They would then have the subject pick up the implement in one hand and ask them to identify it, and do various things with it. The results were markedly different depending on which side of the partition, and therefore which eye and which hand, were engaged.
Here is some general information on the early experiments.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect you're just not very familiar with nice bras. There are other interesting variations on bra design as well. Many of them are quite sensual. Go to google, make sure the nanny safe search is off, enter "transparent lace bra" as the search term, and then click on "Images."
Very few sightings of bikinis will look like that.
And then there are the metal / chain bras. Kill the safesearch, use "chain bra OR bralette", search, the click images.
You can search "cupless bra" as well for something a bit different.
There are definitely some interesting looks out there that leave most bikinis in the dust.
If you're really lucky, you'll hook up with someone who knows to wear them, too. :)
BBS's were far ahead of you in the we-exchange-news-bytes class. Far.
Back-and-forth's in radio, and prior to that, newspapers, predated any network-based social media by a very long time as well.
There were probably rock carving sequences that qualify prior to that.
Etc.
Nothing new here - other than the media in use.
I signed up. I watched the premiere. It was terrible. That was the end of my signup.
I don't know WTF is wrong with having a damned science advisor on the production team, and listening to them. But apparently there is something wrong with it. Because they either didn't have one, or they didn't listen to them, either of which is deadly for producing something that purports to be SF.
I'll grant you that trek has always been some kind of broken, science-wise, but this version, the premiere anyway, was near maximum suck.
And then there were the long angsty conversations in the captain's ready room when there was a bloody emergency going on.
What a load of CGI-shiny poop.
Yes, but that's not the solution - that's one of the problems. OS X (MacOS now, sigh) and the applications that run under it are a huge part of why people use these machines. It's not as simple as just offering non-Mac upgradable hardware. When that offer includes "abandon everything you have and start over", then it's not the same proposition at all as "buy a new Mac." If it's "make an unsupported 'Hackintosh'", it's still not much better because the potential for things to go much more wrong without recourse remains.
Yes, we will see what that actually means. Technically speaking, the trashcan is "modular", inasmuch as you can connect modules to it (all over your desk.) That was a terrible idea. It remains to be determined if they're willing to admit that and fix it, or if they're going to keep doing "courageous" things to their users without lube. Recent idiocy like removing the 3.5mm audio jack does not bode well for future design decisions.
In their discussion, they were mostly talking about how the design was thermally limited and that bit them in the GPU / CPU upgrade path. Of course, that was stupid too, but if that's the only focus, and they still think cables everywhere is a "good" idea, then we're back to square one: the only good Mac Pro is a pre-trashcan mac pro.
Drives, memory, graphics and other cards - all of these need to be secure inside a sturdy, upgradable and serviceable chassis. Short of that, the pooch has been well and truly screwed, and the PC makers will eat the market.
For now, WRT the phone, turn off your WiFi, use data, and keep the "media" uproar to a minimum unless you have an unlimited data plan. That means no video, no music, no heavy pages, etc. unless you're willing to eat your data allowance pretty quick (that assumes you've been using wifi to keep from stuffing your phone provider's pockets.)
In any event, watch your data consumption. Overages are a cash cow. And you are the cow.
WRT your home system, use ethernet, and turn off wifi until / unless you know you've got the right level of patch / amelioration.
The problem is not the Internet. The problem is wifi. So get off wifi.
So... do we get a proper tower mac pro back now?
That's right, at least
Already answered correctly
No, we don't know anything about the timeframe.
No, still an unknown. That's just nonsense.
We don't know how we accomplish these tasks. Nothing to see here. Intelligence is opaque. Move along.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but neural networks are not intelligent, they are not even close, and we don't even know how they work. There's no indication that we understand actual intelligence yet (the I in AI) or even that we ever will, even if we manage to develop it.
Not a given. No one taught me to program. I taught myself. Because I'm intelligent to some degree. An AI will also be intelligent, and if it's interested in learning to program, it will be able to do so without a "coach." If it can't, there is no "I."
These are LDNLS (low-dimensional neural-like-systems); they are not AI. They learn to solve very narrow problem spaces by making very large numbers of mistakes and having them evaluated for them; they can't evaluate their own results worth a damn. They are not intelligent. That's why they need point-by-point training before they can address a very narrow problem space with something vaguely approaching generality: they can't train themselves because they are not intelligent.
As far as the LDNLS we have now (and so can speak about with any authority), that's not a given either. The obvious is that we'll be able to train multiple LDNLS systems on multiple things and stack them - for instance, walking, talking, listening, washing dishes, taking out the trash, those sort of skills - but there's not much in the way of any hint that there are no limits in this kind of LDNLS stacking. Having said that, no doubt it'll be very useful to us, and as there's no intelligence involved, there are many fewer moral issues to contend with.
Well. Barring a Carrington event, or a nuclear war, or other collapse of technology and society (either one will immediately cause the other.) So that's probably right-ish. Still, they aren't AI, not even close.
No, we don't know that this reasoning is solid - these things don't necessarily follow. Programmers can continue to be programmers right up until a system is activated that can train itself, because programming in realm A tends to be vastly unlike programming in realm B, and also tends to require vastly different sets of adjacent and supplementary knowledge. These systems, to date, cannot leverage or manipulate knowledge like that and
Yes, that pretty much sums it up.
A company of mine used to develop for the Amiga. We did several different types of software and various bits of hardware. We were quite successful in the Amiga context right up until Commodore folded, at which point we switched to Windows and continued our run for many years. During the Amiga years we used to say:
After the Amiga years, we'd just roll our eyes and twitch a bit.
I wonder if they corrected for where the birds were collected. Population density was far lower then, and perhaps the soot was heavier, but also more local.
Intuitively speaking, I have trouble with the idea that the air all over the USA a century ago was more polluted than what I experienced in and around the 1970's, when the very rain was killing vegetation, the Delaware and other rivers ran with suds and rainbow slicks, and large areas of New Jersey were swamps of outright pollution.
The air was worse back then? Locally, sure. Like what happened to London England. But everything? Seems dubious. Very.
Yes, they have changed. You're just not paying attention. My S3 had a removable back, and buying an aftermarket extra-capacity battery for it was exactly as difficult as visiting Amazon for five minutes. My S7 does not have a removable back, and I can't get at the battery. Many other brands also now sport non-removable backs and non-replacable batteries. This is the trend. Why are you unaware of the trend?
Yes, so do I - I have an S7. However, the new phones from Google and Apple do not. Again, this is a significant change in strategy. Why are you unaware of this?
I assume you were at least trying to make a point, but I'm not seeing it. Long battery life doesn't make the requirement for a dongle go away to restore the missing functionality. What does battery life have to do with not needing a 3.5mm phone jack?
lol. :)
Shows what you know.
Using DGPS, they have millimeter resolution, and can ID the individual teeth on your necklace AND the ones in your mouth, and figure out which ones are really you by the alignment to the dead RF spot your faraday cage creates. Then the black helicopters bounces an IR laser off you in case they decide to guide smart weapons in. And that, of course, is simply a matter of where and what you post. In fact, I really shouldn't be postin
*&^%#$^#$ LOST CARRIER
To be fair, you also didn't have a phone that was so thin it needed one, so power-hungry it needed one, and you could actually replace the battery if you needed to so it wasn't an outright horror if it couldn't make it through the day. Oh, and you could also opt for a higher-capacity aftermarket battery and back. You know, because the battery was replaceable.
Welcome to the future, where "better" means "we milk the consumer ever harder."
Also, goodbye 3.5mm audio jack. You won't be needing that. Here, have this nice profitable dongle instead - signed Apple, and now Google.
The speed limit here is 80 mph. 450 miles is just under six hours of actual driving when you keep to the limit (and a lot of people drive a few mph faster.) Which will be interspersed with food stops at the very least.
Also, people are different. Your and my personal safe driving range really doesn't define the same thing for everyone else. For myself, I have vehicles I really enjoy driving, a companion who engages me in interesting conversation, a great entertainment system, and an abiding interest in both scenery and people-watching. Someone else may lack some or all of that.
That is exactly my position as to the legitimate state of affairs (which is not to say, sane), because that's what the 2A says, and it hasn't gotten the attention it needs to reflect the present circumstances.
The problem here specifically with that issue is the constitution should have been amended long ago. Instead, they skipped the proper process and screwed us on every other front they could using the same "because we need/want to today" rationale. And they'll keep doing exactly that until/unless we get after this the right way.
The reality at the moment is that there is a huge amount of law that should never have been made, but the fact is that law is here now and it isn't even slightly likely to go away. So I'm not particularly worried that the constitution does, in fact, authorize keeping and carrying of arms in general. We're well past that.
What I personally would prefer is that the constitution be amended to reflect the current realities in arms. I think it really needs to be done. Nuclear and biological and chemical arms are all stand-up examples of why this needs to be done, quite aside from the issue of guns in the people's hands. The present laws, without a proper constitutional foundation, keep those things illegal, but in the process, they screw us on many other fronts - and that is in no way a good thing.
I don't really care about owning guns one way or another, but I do care when the government just ignores the constitution, and when it makes up sophist nonsense in order to jump some particular constitutional shark.
The problem with all this gun law nonsense, is that congress and the legislators of the states create laws that are grievously in violation of the 2nd amendment, and in doing so, they establish the foundation for similarly sophist malfuckery which they then apply to many other aspects of the constitution with a perfectly straight face.
Here's what I say to the "no guns" minded:
Push for a modification to the constitution that does what you want, and see if you can get that done. This will both somewhat re-establish the people's understanding that there is an obligation of the government to actually obey the thing, and so, potentially at least, protect what little of the bill of rights that hasn't yet been eroded by lawyers and legislators and judges and similar rodentia.
Yelling make a law is exactly the wrong thing to do. Darned near every gun law that doesn't deal directly with someone whose rights have been officially abbreviated due to a conviction for a crime is 100% straight-up illegal. "Shall not be infringed" means that when the government infringes - they're in violation of the very document that authorizes their existence.
Please stop encouraging the government to do that. If you think the constitution needs updating, then by all means, get after that. But stop calling for laws that ignore it. Please.
Heresy!
Out on the bleeding edge, you can already build electrical storage that is maintenance-free, and does not require grid connection. I built a pilot installation for my radio trailer - I'm a ham operator - where the storage is entirely ultracap based. I've got enough out there to provide about as much power as two 110 AH car batteries, which is more than enough to run the three LED lights in the trailer and my 265 watt consume / 100 watt output (on transmit only, it's about 10 watts consumption on receive) radio. I mostly listen, so that's an excellent consumption to supply ratio.
One of the thing that many people don't appreciate about standard solar panels is that they produce energy on cloudy days, albeit a reduced amount; my system never, ever goes down, because there is sufficient capacity to keep it up as compared to the amount of use it gets.
In the future, I expect the cost of ultracaps to come down considerably, and if that happens, the whole battery issue will go right out the window. Ultracaps have very long lifetimes, just as solar panels do. They're not nearly as toxic, either.
For now, I freely admit up front that the cost to do this was not something that is practical for a large installation, such as that which would be required to run a home with a typical 10 KW electrical service. You'd need a lot of panels and a lot of ultracaps (ultracaps are presently at about 10%-20% of energy storage as compared to a comparable size / weight bank of batteries.) However, that 10 KW service is almost always that large to deal with surge demands, rather than constant demand, and that means that you'd need fewer panels overall. The ultracaps are actually far better at delivering surge power than either the grid or batteries, so that cost is only about what you use on average, not peak usage. The converter (ultracaps have a very different discharge curve than batteries do, and require dedicated electronics to produce a steady output comparable to batteries), however, still has to handle the peaks.
So... what, you're emitting gamma radiation that disrupts the silicon? Or do you plan to smash through the hood with a hammer to break the computer?
Enquiring minds want to know!
No, there is no such "Use Ambient Noise Reduction" check. This is under OS X 10.12.6.
Here's the prefs panel
There is no such "Use Ambient Noise Reduction" check. OS X 10.12.6.
Here's the prefs panel
I'll give the browser makers more credit when they stop websites from opening a huge opaque overlay over something I just started to read.
Although I've blacklisted every website that does that I've hit so far, and don't see it so often any longer.
We're starting to see some backlash, though. Preventing auto-play videos, invasive-unasked-for sound... those are great browser fixes.
Oh, they can't monetize my visit without my cooperation? I really don't care. :)
I still support websites that behave reasonably. I subscribe to Soylent, for instance. Used to describe to Slashdot, but after years of no improvements at all and considerable degradation of the site, I figured I could do something more useful with the fee, minor as it is. At least the people over at Soylent are trying to do a good job.
Earlier experiments used a partition to separate the left and right visual fields. One experiment I recall reading about was done like this: On one side of the partition they would place an implement, such as a fork. They would then have the subject pick up the implement in one hand and ask them to identify it, and do various things with it. The results were markedly different depending on which side of the partition, and therefore which eye and which hand, were engaged.
Here is some general information on the early experiments.
Well, it's not the OS, I can hear the noise fine in headphones through the system.
I suppose it could be Safari, which is a black box.
The entire project is on github.
I found this by going to the link in TFS.