"Cold Weather Package: Stay warmer as the weather gets colder with new heated second-row seats, heater windshield wiper nozzles & cowl, improved defrost grill, and an upgraded battery coolant heater to improve vehicle performance and range in cold climates."
Sounds fancy. Even the cars I've had with heated seats (not a fan - I wear pants anyway) haven't had rear seat heaters. This may be a competitive item in the luxury car class. If you're bringing your kids to school and it's actually cold out they're wearing snow pants, but for those kids in Florida when it his 45*F, I guess.
It could be an attractive option for someone with a non-zero chance of having more than one adult passenger in their car. I'm in 'Merca, so I guess that might be the one guy at the rest home that still has his license and shuttles the neighbors to bingo or the grocery store. The ones that don't yet need to take the wheelchair-lift van, that is. Okay, so it's a niche market.
Then put YOUR ass on the line and do what you suggest. Suggesting other people put their asses on the line for your benefit just means you're a dick.
You seem to be taking this rather personally. Why? vux984 can't make you or me or anyone else do what they don't want to do, even if he does suggest it would be okay to do so. The "dick" accusation is a petty way to state your disagreement.
I think binarylarry's assumption is that people lie by saying they don't read/watch/use porn when they do, rather than lie that they do when they don't. (Based on the assumption that it's socially more acceptable to deny that accusation.) And therefore, the ones claiming non-use are the liars, and thus the larger striatum was a component of the propensity of or capacity for lying.
However, taking children out of the home and having them reared by "certified professionals" has always been de rigueur among communists, socialists, and leftists of every stripe, so I guess you've made your own position abundantly clear.
How old does a kid have to be before they can walk to school on their own? How would it be any different in an autonomous car?
The difference is how far a kid can go in an autonomous car vs walking under their own power.
Even a bike doesn't change the situation all that much, since cars are still several times faster than a child's top speed.
I guess it depends on how much cab fare you give the kid. Or in the case of the autonomous car, how far you let the car take them. I'm assuming there are some safeguards in place that a thief just can hop in your autonomous car and say "take me to Denver." And that these same safeguards would keep your kids from straying too far from home without permission. Parents can always be incompetent, of course, but that doesn't require a self-driving car to cause serious problems.
if an engineer, who designed the B52, would have imagined, in their wildest dreams, that the B52 would still be a major weapon of war over 50 years after it was built?
I wonder if he'd be alive to ask. It went into service in 1955. A junior engineer just out of college getting in on the tail end of development would be 81 years old now. A "senior engineer" at Boeing -- let's say mid 30s -- in the 1946-52 timeframe from contract award to first flight would be pushing 100 now . ..
I suspect most of the remaining difference is in the weight of the various crash safety features. Cars in the U.S. are expected to provide protection in a crash with the tanks they now market under the name "SUV"; in Europe, this isn't as much of a consideration.
Wouldn't a gas, electric, or diesel Fiat 500 all have to meet the same crashworthiness standard? I would suspect that Fiatchrysler is more concerned with US particulates regulations wrt diesels in this case. And to some extent, their perception of the low-end US market's reluctance to buy a diesel car. (I think their calculus is wrong on that, too, BTW)
Also, the SUV scourge isn't just a US thing anymore.
Memorial day pricing, but gas here is $3.80 to $3.90 and diesel is $3.70. Sometimes it is cheaper.
Where are you, and can I sleep on your couch after I fuel up the Touareg? Because it's been the other way 'round with gas and diesel here for almost 7 years.
What this comes down to is: In order to live in a society with the sort of freedoms we have beed accustomed to for the past few hundred years, we are going to have to live with 3000 lives more or less lost every decade or so. On the other hand, we could live in neat and orderly society. But I don't want to be caned for chewing gum in public. I'll put up with the occasional sticky wad under the bus seat in exchange for my freedom.
I think I'd go along with you and accept those risks in exchange for our freedoms and Constitutional tradition. Since that death toll is on par with the number of Native American/Alaskan/Eskimo/Inuit women who die in the same timeframe from injuries involving motorized land transportation, it's clearly a number that we can deal with.
Now if anyone says: "well, try telling that to the families of the victims of terrorism" I would have to counter that we don't feel compelled to put on sackcloth and ashes over all the far more numerous but less dramatic deaths that occur all around us all the time. Something like 3000 Americans die every year of peptic ulcers for God's sake. Their families are every bit as griefstricken as if their Mom/Dad/Wife/Husband/Child had been killed by a bombing or hijacking. I guess they had the decency to die one at a time in homes and hospitals so as not to upset everyone else.
We trash important parts of our Constitution and spend untold lives and treasure for 3000 victims of terrorism. If we genuinely cared about people, we'd be outraged by the fact that tens of thousands die each year in the US from inadequate health care. But try to get universal medical coverage and watch the firestorm of outrage. Increase penalties for distracted driving? No way, because freedom to text and drive! But Trash the Bill of Rights, not so much.
Am I suggesting we do nothing about the threat of terrorism? No, I'm saying that the countermeasures should be proportional to the actual risk, not to the headline value.
The very act of externalizing something is part of the writing process. The idea that one who might think it all out and then type/code/compose/whatever a perfectly formed document/program/concerto/whatever only really exists in the imaginary Mozart that lives in Peter Schaffer's mind.
Besides, I prefer to save my work at defined points. Just because the system can recreate what I was doing where I left off before that dead battery/power failure/segfault/system crash/emergency phone call doesn't necessarily mean I can.
"These particles, stored in a vacuum, react to the Earth's magnetic field." Is it actually possible to store anything in a vacuum? If a vacuum is, by definition, a space that is devoid of matter, once you put something in it, it's not a vacuum anymore.
I guess if I store my clothes in a closet, it's no longer a "closet," but a "closet with clothes in it." And really, it's gonna be filled with the same atmosphere as the rest of the house even before I unpack my pants. Probably dust, too. At least if I go on like this for long enough, my wife will put my things away just to get me to shut up.
Are we saying Global Positioning System, capitalized and considered a Proper Noun?
Then, no.
Are we saying global positionin system, a generalized term for systems that give you position data on the globe?
Then yes.
That's pretty much the extent of intelligent conversation we can have on this subject. Everything else is just bitching about terms becoming generic without our personal permission or whether descriptive terms should be allowed to become proper nouns -- also without out personal permission..
Then you are an idiot, a fool, a liar, or some combination of them.
Well, I guess you're mean, rash, socially awkward, or some combination of those. I was referring to the situations I'd witnessed myself that had some similarity to the situation in TFA, not TFA guy. Seeing as I was suggesting a similar situation with a possible non-criminal explanation, whereas TFA guy admitted to doing it deliberately, I didn't think it was confusing.
Or maybe you just read my comment too quickly before posting.
The point at which this guy admitted he maliciously tampered with equipment, he was screwed. He should have argued that he was incompetent...
I've seen more than one shop where some vital/important system required the personal intervention of one particular guy to get up and going again in the event that something needed to be reset/rebooted/repaired. I don't believe it was malice, just incompetence, overconfidence, understaffing or some combination that resulted in a plausibly deniable deadman switch.
Remember folks, what the government does to weev, it can do to everyone else.
Sure. That is in fact one of the reasons that people establish governments in the first place: to keep other people socially constrained to a certain minimal level of acceptable behavior and to sanction those who do not comply. In the case of the US, the Preamble to the Constitution clearly states this as a goal: "We the people of the United States, in order to [among other things] . . . insure domestic tranquility . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
What those behavior standards are and what sanctions can be applied reflect the society that establishes the government.
In the Weev case, I think society's expectations and the government's implementation of those expectations don't really work that well for anyone. We've got a guy with personality, psychological and social problems that make him prone to bad behavior. They also make him rather thoroughly unlikable. So when he does commit a crime, his punishment is at least as much -- IMO -- for his unlikability and society's distaste for mental illness as it is for the actual crime committed. And for his punishment we choose the one thing that will certainly make him worse: increased, extreme isolation and other abusive treatment. To not expect him to come out worse than he went in is pure delusion. But this time it's society's delusion, not Weev's.
The obvious strawman response to this is something along the lines of: "So, Rob, we should just let him get away with anything because he's 'sick'?" To which I have no response, because it's a strawman.
My point is if we wanted to find a way to make a bad situation like this worse, it's hard to imagine how we'd do it more effectively. It's unfortunate for all of us that this is the best we've got.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds fancy. Even the cars I've had with heated seats (not a fan - I wear pants anyway) haven't had rear seat heaters. This may be a competitive item in the luxury car class. If you're bringing your kids to school and it's actually cold out they're wearing snow pants, but for those kids in Florida when it his 45*F, I guess.
It could be an attractive option for someone with a non-zero chance of having more than one adult passenger in their car. I'm in 'Merca, so I guess that might be the one guy at the rest home that still has his license and shuttles the neighbors to bingo or the grocery store. The ones that don't yet need to take the wheelchair-lift van, that is. Okay, so it's a niche market.
Then put YOUR ass on the line and do what you suggest. Suggesting other people put their asses on the line for your benefit just means you're a dick.
You seem to be taking this rather personally. Why? vux984 can't make you or me or anyone else do what they don't want to do, even if he does suggest it would be okay to do so. The "dick" accusation is a petty way to state your disagreement.
I think binarylarry's assumption is that people lie by saying they don't read/watch/use porn when they do, rather than lie that they do when they don't. (Based on the assumption that it's socially more acceptable to deny that accusation.) And therefore, the ones claiming non-use are the liars, and thus the larger striatum was a component of the propensity of or capacity for lying.
I would rather get dementia than tell lies and live like it is OK with whats going on in this country.
If 'dementia' means what I think it means, you can actually do both.
Points to Ms Clinton for asking that money be put to fundamental development and the general betterment.
How sad that more people do not realize computers have brought "General Betterment" to more people than most inventions in history.
Sanitation? Fresh water? Roads? Irrigation? Medicine? Education?
However, taking children out of the home and having them reared by "certified professionals" has always been de rigueur among communists, socialists, and leftists of every stripe, so I guess you've made your own position abundantly clear.
Perhaps this article will be of some use to you.
If yes, the vehicle is NOT autonomous.
Like a cab with a driver that had a stroke and collapsed. With a legally blind fare in back.
How old does a kid have to be before they can walk to school on their own? How would it be any different in an autonomous car?
The difference is how far a kid can go in an autonomous car vs walking under their own power. Even a bike doesn't change the situation all that much, since cars are still several times faster than a child's top speed.
I guess it depends on how much cab fare you give the kid. Or in the case of the autonomous car, how far you let the car take them. I'm assuming there are some safeguards in place that a thief just can hop in your autonomous car and say "take me to Denver." And that these same safeguards would keep your kids from straying too far from home without permission. Parents can always be incompetent, of course, but that doesn't require a self-driving car to cause serious problems.
if an engineer, who designed the B52, would have imagined, in their wildest dreams, that the B52 would still be a major weapon of war over 50 years after it was built?
I wonder if he'd be alive to ask. It went into service in 1955. A junior engineer just out of college getting in on the tail end of development would be 81 years old now. A "senior engineer" at Boeing -- let's say mid 30s -- in the 1946-52 timeframe from contract award to first flight would be pushing 100 now . . .
Writing a floppy driver is by far one of the easiest hardware drivers to write
Using an existing, tested, and documented library so you can concentrate on the actual problem you're trying solve is even easier.
I suspect most of the remaining difference is in the weight of the various crash safety features. Cars in the U.S. are expected to provide protection in a crash with the tanks they now market under the name "SUV"; in Europe, this isn't as much of a consideration.
Wouldn't a gas, electric, or diesel Fiat 500 all have to meet the same crashworthiness standard? I would suspect that Fiatchrysler is more concerned with US particulates regulations wrt diesels in this case. And to some extent, their perception of the low-end US market's reluctance to buy a diesel car. (I think their calculus is wrong on that, too, BTW)
Also, the SUV scourge isn't just a US thing anymore.
and costs more (here)
Memorial day pricing, but gas here is $3.80 to $3.90 and diesel is $3.70. Sometimes it is cheaper.
Where are you, and can I sleep on your couch after I fuel up the Touareg? Because it's been the other way 'round with gas and diesel here for almost 7 years.
Two links, both to paywalled articles.
Fantastic.
Weird. Both Times articles opened fine for me. I'm in the US, and I don't have an NYT subscription.
What this comes down to is: In order to live in a society with the sort of freedoms we have beed accustomed to for the past few hundred years, we are going to have to live with 3000 lives more or less lost every decade or so. On the other hand, we could live in neat and orderly society. But I don't want to be caned for chewing gum in public. I'll put up with the occasional sticky wad under the bus seat in exchange for my freedom.
I think I'd go along with you and accept those risks in exchange for our freedoms and Constitutional tradition. Since that death toll is on par with the number of Native American/Alaskan/Eskimo/Inuit women who die in the same timeframe from injuries involving motorized land transportation, it's clearly a number that we can deal with.
Now if anyone says: "well, try telling that to the families of the victims of terrorism" I would have to counter that we don't feel compelled to put on sackcloth and ashes over all the far more numerous but less dramatic deaths that occur all around us all the time. Something like 3000 Americans die every year of peptic ulcers for God's sake. Their families are every bit as griefstricken as if their Mom/Dad/Wife/Husband/Child had been killed by a bombing or hijacking. I guess they had the decency to die one at a time in homes and hospitals so as not to upset everyone else.
We trash important parts of our Constitution and spend untold lives and treasure for 3000 victims of terrorism. If we genuinely cared about people, we'd be outraged by the fact that tens of thousands die each year in the US from inadequate health care. But try to get universal medical coverage and watch the firestorm of outrage. Increase penalties for distracted driving? No way, because freedom to text and drive! But Trash the Bill of Rights, not so much.
Am I suggesting we do nothing about the threat of terrorism? No, I'm saying that the countermeasures should be proportional to the actual risk, not to the headline value.
Maybe now we'll have to think before we write.
The very act of externalizing something is part of the writing process. The idea that one who might think it all out and then type/code/compose/whatever a perfectly formed document/program/concerto/whatever only really exists in the imaginary Mozart that lives in Peter Schaffer's mind.
Besides, I prefer to save my work at defined points. Just because the system can recreate what I was doing where I left off before that dead battery/power failure/segfault/system crash/emergency phone call doesn't necessarily mean I can.
"These particles, stored in a vacuum, react to the Earth's magnetic field." Is it actually possible to store anything in a vacuum? If a vacuum is, by definition, a space that is devoid of matter, once you put something in it, it's not a vacuum anymore.
I guess if I store my clothes in a closet, it's no longer a "closet," but a "closet with clothes in it." And really, it's gonna be filled with the same atmosphere as the rest of the house even before I unpack my pants. Probably dust, too. At least if I go on like this for long enough, my wife will put my things away just to get me to shut up.
Next up in our quest to solve the world's semantic quibbles: is it a metric system if it isn't SI?
Discuss among yourselves.
Are we saying Global Positioning System, capitalized and considered a Proper Noun? Then, no.
Are we saying global positionin system, a generalized term for systems that give you position data on the globe? Then yes.
That's pretty much the extent of intelligent conversation we can have on this subject. Everything else is just bitching about terms becoming generic without our personal permission or whether descriptive terms should be allowed to become proper nouns -- also without out personal permission..
Then you are an idiot, a fool, a liar, or some combination of them.
Well, I guess you're mean, rash, socially awkward, or some combination of those. I was referring to the situations I'd witnessed myself that had some similarity to the situation in TFA, not TFA guy. Seeing as I was suggesting a similar situation with a possible non-criminal explanation, whereas TFA guy admitted to doing it deliberately, I didn't think it was confusing.
Or maybe you just read my comment too quickly before posting.
The point at which this guy admitted he maliciously tampered with equipment, he was screwed. He should have argued that he was incompetent...
I've seen more than one shop where some vital/important system required the personal intervention of one particular guy to get up and going again in the event that something needed to be reset/rebooted/repaired. I don't believe it was malice, just incompetence, overconfidence, understaffing or some combination that resulted in a plausibly deniable deadman switch.
The ads! I can't get them out of my head! Even when I close my eyes they're there! Why did I buy Google Contact Lenses?!?
Contact lenses? Lucky you. I thought I was saving money by getting Google Lasik.
We passed that point decades ago.
Yes we did.
Vodka milkshake? That never occurred to me before, I'll have to try that tonight. Thanks!
If you think that's good, try adding a shot of espresso, chocolate syrup and a Xanax.
Liberal Fascism
Save your money. If you want it, you can probably pick up a cheap copy at your local thrift store.
Remember folks, what the government does to weev, it can do to everyone else.
Sure. That is in fact one of the reasons that people establish governments in the first place: to keep other people socially constrained to a certain minimal level of acceptable behavior and to sanction those who do not comply. In the case of the US, the Preamble to the Constitution clearly states this as a goal: "We the people of the United States, in order to [among other things] . . . insure domestic tranquility . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
What those behavior standards are and what sanctions can be applied reflect the society that establishes the government.
In the Weev case, I think society's expectations and the government's implementation of those expectations don't really work that well for anyone. We've got a guy with personality, psychological and social problems that make him prone to bad behavior. They also make him rather thoroughly unlikable. So when he does commit a crime, his punishment is at least as much -- IMO -- for his unlikability and society's distaste for mental illness as it is for the actual crime committed. And for his punishment we choose the one thing that will certainly make him worse: increased, extreme isolation and other abusive treatment. To not expect him to come out worse than he went in is pure delusion. But this time it's society's delusion, not Weev's.
The obvious strawman response to this is something along the lines of: "So, Rob, we should just let him get away with anything because he's 'sick'?" To which I have no response, because it's a strawman.
My point is if we wanted to find a way to make a bad situation like this worse, it's hard to imagine how we'd do it more effectively. It's unfortunate for all of us that this is the best we've got.