I wouldn't call the New York Post "fake news", but dang if their articles aren't just trash pieces. Usually, their stories have about as much investigation a fifth grader would put into a story. I've yet read a piece from their paper where I didn't follow it up with, "That's great and all but that only works if everyone on this planet thinks exactly like you, which they don't. You've provided no argument as to why anything you've just said should matter. Nor have you stated anything that isn't your opinion cloaked in generalities." NYP isn't worth you buying a copy of their paper even if they gave you $1.00 for taking a copy.
I think the argument, "You're getting Y Mbps! That ought to be enough!!" is missing the point a bit. What's going on is that an ISP offers package A. Neighborhood X has no problem keeping up with demand because the area was expected to draw bigger income earners when the fiber was laid down. Neighborhood Y has issues keeping up with demand because, to the ISP, net income in the area just makes it unattractive to lay more fiber in the area.
WARNING Personal rant below
I've got the exact same thing here where I live. Head over to a friend's house that's about seven miles down the road and their package just screams. Head back home, and I have the exact same package as friend, and my Internet is pretty much crap. We're in the same flipping city, the difference being that the area I live in is slightly cheaper housing (~$150k/unit) versus friend's neck of the woods being average of (~$300k/unit). It's irritating because you can literally see them out in his side of town laying more fiber down where I'll be doing good to get my Internet back up if lighting strikes one of the station boxes (literally took six "WORK" days before it got back up, tornado tears down one of the boxes on the other side of town and it's good as new two days later, same flipping storm!).
So yeah, I really do hope that these folks win, because it's just stupid to think "Oh I'll just get the same package that my friend has and it'll be all good" only to find out that since you decided to save a pretty penny and put the diff into your retirement and not buy one of those gaudy, super high ceiling/hard to AC properly, brick facade on only one side of the house, fully paved patio in the back, piece of crap houses that now you're doomed to have crap internet, even though you literally have the exact same thing as those who decided to buy one of those houses I just described.
Careful there, because not all cycles are created equal. It's indicated that they got 120 hours in a single cycle. So if we assume that we lose 10% for every 60 cycles, that's still sum(60*120*(1-n*10%),n = 0 -> 9). That's 39600 hours.or 4.5 years of usage. However, for a multiple number of reasons, I doubt this will see light anytime soon in a phone. There's a lot of lingering questions as to if it scales and what kind of self discharge these things are look at to name a few.
Nothing will get better; rather, these vile sentiments will fester
Hey there. Wasn't sure if you knew when WWII was, because this crap has been festering since then. Also then was before the Internet. So while you're not wrong there. Having them out in the open on the Internet didn't slow them down, having them go into the darker side of the Internet won't slow them down, the only thing people can do is continually reject their ideology every time it pops up. Just like we'll have to remind everyone from time to time why you vaccinate your kids. Success in one area leaves a vacuum for ignorance to grow in.
we'll have a tougher time anticipating the next Charlotsville, since it won't be so widely publicized
Oh that's good to know that the guy posted online that he was about to ram his car over someone. That would make it premeditated wouldn't it? You'd think the DA would have brought that up in the formal charges brought on the guy?
Good job, fuckwads.
You're welcome, see you next time this inevitably happens again and we all have this exact same conversation about slippery slopes and forcing them into the darkness. Human nature is fun like that.
So you think there is a possibility that a technologic advanced civilization can build a machine that runs for 25 million years
Yeah. Seeing how a proton can be stable for trillions upon trillions of years, I think that it is indeed possible to build atomic scaled machines that can last for a millionth of that scale. Especially in places of the universe where the dominating thing you'd be running into would be dark energy and photons, with the random hydrogen/helium nuclei every twenty to fifty thousand years.
Additionally, the machine wouldn't really need to run for 99% of the trip. Additionally, you could use radioactive half-life as a timer as opposed to standard electrical timers. Also, in the void between galaxies there's not going to be a real need for course correction. The ratio between things like globular clusters and the craft itself would be so small, changes to the trajectory would take several million years to build up to something. Additionally, since the motion of extra-galactic objects is so slow in relation to say the Milky Way or Andromeda's frame of reference, it's not like they couldn't correct for trajectory just as the craft left the galaxy.
However, that's putting it in terms we can understand, which in itself is pretty limited. But given that the universe has shown that things can be built that last billions if not trillions of years, it's not a stretch of the imagination to think that we can't do better one day in the future, or that someone hasn't done so already.
I detest these arguments because it literally ignores the dynamic nature of law, society, and basically how humans function in general. Life is a slippery slope bud it's just how it works. The reason that capitalist speech isn't ranking among Nazi speech is because people can show widely the public value of it over Nazi speech. Nazi speech literally has zero value to the public. There might come a day when the same becomes true for capitalism or for any other given topic. The entire point is that it's up to society to ensure that doesn't happen. I don't see massive droves of folks coming out of the woodwork to protest this move by Google which is a pretty good indicator that there close to zero people who actually value Nazis. So be there censorship or not, if society shuns your topic, it become a topic that eventually will get called the enemy. That's not dangerous ground, that's just how being human beings works. But of course, we're not the most logical race ever so perhaps being human is the dangerous thing here.
That's being severely limited in view. First and most importantly, this isn't a conversation where we limit the discussion to just humans. If that's the case, there's not a point to the discussion. Humanity is just now beginning to explore the cosmos, there's literally no telling what we might be able to do. Secondly, for humanity, we could figure out how to store consciousness and perfect cloning. Scale storage to account for millions of people and then send it off to another galaxy. When it gets there it 3D prints humans and restores their memory from the backup. And that's just working on ideas that we can think of currently. Imagine humanity in 10k years hence and there may exist technology incomprehensible to us today. Additionally, there very well could be a species that exists out there, that's already done this very thing and that's the whole point. If humans can think of it, I find it odd that it hasn't been done in the eight billion years since the Milky Way's arms formed. I find it also shortsighted to think that no one will ever do it in the trillions upon trillions of years we have till heat death, if that is indeed the ultimate fate of the universe. If no one ever does it, then it has to be a really good reason for that. And that's the center piece of the conversation, there has to be a really, really, really good reason that no one has done this (as far as we can tell). Either we're really bad at looking up at the cosmos (very possible) or there's something just over the horizon that's about to doom us all (also possible) or it's something we cannot even think about (most likely of all the ones stated). But thinking that you can hurl a human through space for 25 million years at any point in the vast expanse of time and space is just limiting yourself to the most recent 400 years of humanity.
if there's no FTL travel, and it's likely there is not, then HOW would we hear from someone ?
You say that, but that totally invalidates what you said prior to that.
A 100 million years is a long time
The Andromeda galaxy is only 780 kpc from us. At 99% the speed of light, that's only 2.5 million years. On a scale of 100 million years, that's totally doable multiple times over. That's the huge mystery of the Fermi paradox. Given medium time scales like G-type main sequence stars lifetimes, alien life has had enough time to hop between the big three galaxies in our local group and do a fly-by of the main stars in all three as well.
if there's no FTL travel, and it's likely there is not
Yeah, it's insanely likely that FTL is just sci-fi forever. I personally think anything higher than 90% c is just non-doable. So look back at the last paragraph in my comment. Say we slow everyone down to just 10% c. At 10% c, you can hop from one side of the Milky Way to the other in just a million years. Get to Andromeda in just 25 million years. That's still really short time spans. You could fly to Andromeda, send a message back and the sun still wouldn't have entered it's next phase, one billion years from now compared to 27 million years for what I just described.
First of all, there's the 2,000,000 year latency, and then the amount of power you would need to transmit that signal, etc...
All of those are insanely small scale issues, they're big things to us because we lack the ability to even fly to another planet, but if you're the type of society that can fly at 10% c, those are pretty simple tasks that might take 10k years to build a generator, 15k years to build the transmitter, etc. They just seems like big deals because we're nowhere near that kind of specie.
So millions of years is not a huge amount of time. But more importantly, becoming a traveler of the stars means you don't hold on to where you came from. You travel to Andromeda, that's who you are now. You don't have strong ties to Earth anymore, you're a seed of life, not an explorer. Humanity still clings to this notion that once we start, if we start, traveling the stars that we'll for some reason still treat Earth as this special place that we need to come back to or at the very least report back to. We might send a message, but after that, those humans are now their own thing. The idea of sending people to other planets isn't to save Earth, it isn't even to save our species because more than likely after a few thousand years on a different planet your DNA is going to change vastly. It's to save intellect, to keep the thinking/feeling part of the Universe going. As far as we know we're the first/only part of the universe that's got the thinking attribute and maybe just like how supernovae spread heavier elements, we need to get our butts in gear to start spreading this attribute across the galaxies (just the local group, the idea that we'll ever make it out of the local group is not even real with any kind of advancement). But that's just my take.
I seriously, don't think you understand the sheer amount of corn that is grown in the US. To think that the small amount of ethanol that we produce actually affects the price of corn (and everything that relies on it) is seriously laughable. Business people are always looking for scapegoats to jack up the prices dude. That's like US economics 101. War in Iraq? Hell, raise the price of gasoline. Flood in Japan? Raise the price of Kraft cheese singles. Brexit? Might as well add $3 for everything made of cotton.
Poor people starved to death in the thousands
They got you hook, line, and sinker. The US alone has millions starving and the rationale for that is really complicated. However, people have pointed to the hungry in the US as proof for all kinds of things. Lack of religion in the the US, illegal immigration, terrorist, etc. So no one is surprised that someone decided to put the whole ethanol thing on the backs of the hungry as well.
Ethanol was a highly inefficiency gas
You'll get no argument from me here. Ethanol runs best in cars that are specifically made to run on that fuel. There's flex fuel cars that change the stroke of the engine to compensate for a higher mix of ethanol. They're alright, but an engine specifically made for the fuel would be better.
Don't get me wrong.
The ethanol industry aren't the most honest folks either. Someone decided that corn was the only supply of fuel when there's plenty of research that could have gone into producing fuel from Kudzu, a weed that no one really wants. That's just farmers wanting to make more and more money and in reality, whoever subsidizes their farm, is making an even bigger cut. These farmers usually just put into crap contracts that ensure they'll never become solvent in 100 years. Any new industry they try to expand into, the person with the funds eventually figures out how to get their cut before the farmer. So yeah, the ethanol folks aren't exactly hands clean either. But don't go buying that made up crap that ethanol is increasing your food prices. That's just bull they're using to charge you more for less food. Climate change thus far has had a way bigger impact than ethanol will ever have on the price of food. Even then, that plays only second to sheer greed and opportunity to jack up prices on unsuspecting dolts.
Simply put. Shortly after 2007 they lost serious focus. Back then the Web as a Desktop app was being touted around like the next big thing. The idea was floated around a lot in 2005 and Microsoft began working on Silverlight, the Unspeakable Horror (Flash) began "Air", Apple built a web browser that could do it called Safari (based on WebKit, which was based on KHTML/KJS which the KDE folks were blurring the lines between web and desktop to kind of mimic IE pre-lawsuit), JavaFX 1 was also there, and so on... Everyone thought turning a website into a desktop application was a good idea. Mozilla began Prism at that time and it basically wrecked the already poorly tossed together code base. Now, mind you this. Firefox was great when the only other game in town was IE back in 2004. But even in Firefox 1.0 the code base wasn't as modular as it is today and it ran not that great. However, since the majority of the web was the Unspeakable Horror, it was hard to notice. Additionally, HTML 4.01 wasn't all that complicated and JS engines that screamed weren't a thing.
Now when Apple took KHTML and KJS in 2001 and turned it into WebKit in 2003, Google took a whole lot of flippity, flip, flip notice about how quickly Apple did a turn around on that. When Firefox 1.0 hit, there were already rumors that Google was working on their own browser. The rate at which one could take the WebKit core and whip up a browser was insane. Firefox's Netscape code base could never be modified as quickly as WebKit could and it was all the rage.
Sometime in 2005, browser in the phone was the hotness in Silicon Valley. If web as a desktop application was big, being able to move those applications into a phone was bigger. Android was brought out by Google and Apple began working on iPhone. We know where that went, but a lot of folks think that smartphones began life as a means to push apps. It wasn't. Apple, Google, and Mozilla lit a fire under the W3C's ass to start on HTML5 to replace the Unspeakable Horror and all the other Sliverlights/AIRs/FXs out there. It helped that open source was also a hotness everywhere at that time.
Anyways, I'm babbling... Point being final call on HTML5 didn't begin till 2011. By that time app developers had already chosen a winner, native API over HTML5. The dragging of their feet basically doomed HTML5 from ever taking off big. Mozilla's investment in Prism was all for not. Their code base was a mess from all the things they kept doing to get Prism, plus playing catch up to Google who by 2011 was already halfway to Firefox. Firefox 4 is commonly cited as the downfall, but they had problems long before that, it's just that 3.5 used the old base and had minor fixes, while the base for Firefox 4 was, well a cluster fuck of ideas all unguided. Firefox 4 was bad, because Mozilla pushed it out in a rush in 2011 to try and get one last gasp for Prism and to do something about Chrome's rocketing usage. Massive failure, Firefox kills Prism a few months later.
When Mozilla saw that Prism was a waste they began on their next project Firefox OS. Unsurprisingly, that just made the entire code base even worse. Mozilla kept shifting their goals and trying to work with a code base that was nowhere as nimble as WebKit. IE saw the writing on the wall and that's where we get Edge, of course, they only saw it after smacking into the wall about 800 times, but they finally got the message. Firefox 57, is the first step Mozilla is taking to redoing the base. They've redone the JS engine, they've redone the rendering, they've redone a lot of bits and pieces since Firefox 4, but Firefox 57 is a more massive shift. Firefox 57 isn't a rewrite, but it is a serious step away from the old Netscape base, well it's not really fair to call it that since between 4 and 52 they've slowly shifted into something that's 10-15% Netscape, 20% ideas from Prism, 30% ideas from Firefox OS, and the rest is random crap to just make all those
I hate to break it to you but Mozilla parted ways[*] with Thunderbird and SeaMonkey some time ago. The developers hired by Mozilla, mainly focus on Firefox/Rust/everything you just mentioned solely. Now that being a good thing or bad thing is, I am sure, a topic for discussion.
[*] Mozilla still proves legal advice/backing and hosting of code for the two projects. However, no Mozilla developer works on either of these projects directly (obviously there's dabbling). They are now community developed and overseen by Thunderbird Council and SeaMonkey Council respectively. Additionally, there is some leeway granted to these two projects in respect to Copyrighted material like logos and what not.
Trust me when I say, all things in my life considered ads need to up their game on their attack of my sanity if they wish to compete with the folks I work with. And on that note, I am all behind the idea that meetings with the group of non-technicals that develop the requirements for our software projects, are broken up with intrusive ads.
Holy crap! Did you know you can get basically Pandora for free? And more than likely your car already has the equipment for it!! I usually plug the iPhone in before I start the car up, but one day I totally left it in the cup holder forgetting to plug it up. I thought that the silence would have been a cue for me to plug it in but boom! Music was playing when the car turned on. I looked at my phone, looked at the console of the car, back at the phone, back at the console. I just couldn't understand what this new "FM" device was! But it's basically free music. I got to work, turned off the car, waited a second, turned it back on, and boom the FM device was back!
Anyway, I wonder if Apple will ever build an app that allows me to access my "FM" device account? Also, is the membership built into the price of a car? I just don't understand how a streaming service can exist without me paying for it.
There's nothing wrong with streaming per se. I love Netflix, big Stranger Things fan, but the argument that I'm "saving" something by skipping ads I feel is quite silly to me. It was time that I originally planned to be non-productive. I planned on that time to yield nothing. So getting back the 18 minutes that I would have spent in ads still yields me $0 since that's the value I placed on that time originally. I just don't get this notion that every second of someone's life has some dollar and cents attached to it. We're not 100% productive beings, in fact that's very much the core reason we've invented things to increase our productivity.
If putting a price on every second someone is alive is your kind of thing, then more power to you. I'm not calling you wrong in any sense of the word because I just feel that this isn't one of those things that has a "correct" answer. It's just a matter of how one values their time. I'm sure there's pros and cons to either perspective, but I vote with my dollars based on how much I enjoy the content, not the lack or presence of ads.
I read a few comments here and I think there is something worth pointing out. This is part of the Test Pilot program and only is in your browser if you've opted in on the Test Pilot program and only then is it "added" to your install.
Do note, this isn't me condoning anything here, I'm just merely trying to point out that if you aren't in the Test Pilot program, then you're not seeing these tools/invasion of privacy/wherever you stand between those two points. I don't know what the ultimate intention is here and honestly I forgot my asbestos suit at home so I'll abstain from any flame.
Given the ongoing nature of the threats to disrupt the Commission's electronic comment ling system, it would undermine our system's security to provide a specific roadmap of the additional solutions to which we have referred
Wow, and the FCC is what I would consider a pretty bland department much like USDA or FCIC. But wow, what a way to totally derail any credibility the department had. Hint, anytime an agency thinks doing something totally opaque to public review is a good idea, it's usually not a good idea.
I'll also add that he also setup an account for himself on MetaFilter to chit-chat with people about his book "How to Get a Real Education". Eventually it was found out that he also created other accounts to play the role of agreeable people who enjoyed his commentary.
I can say that Scott Adams and Donald Trump are cut of the same cloth in that they feel jilted from some sort of recognition. Ask Scott Adams, and he'd tell you that he feels like he's on equal, if not better, than say Bill Watterson who made a little comic about a boy and a tiger. That he doesn't receive the universal praise that he ought to, that's he's not elevated above all like his clearly superior intellect should entitle him to, is not an issue of his. No it's that society as a whole is incorrect. That there's something that robs him from the name recognition he's rightfully entitled to.
Trump suffers the same. He's always coveted the old rich. Names like Rockefeller, JP Morgan, etc. People who honestly built the wealth they had when they died. Trump was never that. He's always in the money circles always been seen as the shadow of his father's wealth. And that's driven some of Trump narrative, being both, "If they won't accept me I'll destroy them" and "Notice me Senpai". Trump's never had the wherewithal mentally to match "elites" so to say and so he's made it a point to put them at the opposite end of the spectrum of his campaign. Trump has wanted to shortcut every single step to becoming the next Rockefeller and it's for that reason that Trump has always fallen so short.
He's been pretty busy deporting illegal immigrants
And to me that's really spinning wheels but going nowhere. Because moving a person to one side of the border doesn't keep them on that side of the border. And that's a lot of Trump's policy. There's smoke, but there's no fire. Nothing is "long term", nothing is "a solution". Everything that has been done thus far can be summed up as, "What can I do today, that ultimately will be undone tomorrow, but will at least make me look good today?" It's just more short cutting the whole process and in the places where there is no short cut, it turns into a Twitter flame. Deporting folks, fine whatever, but you know what would be a real treat? Actually having a policy that solved the entire issue.
So I can't speak for others who bring up the question, "but what has he really done?" But I can say that when I ask this, what I'm looking for are the things that he's done, that will outlive his term (or terms) in office? There's nothing so far because EOs can just be rewritten by the next guy. The people you deport today will be the same people you deport next week. It's clear that there are currently zero countries that are willing to talk to him about the Paris accord and since it was a non-binding agreement there's no reason for them to do so. Healthcare keeps getting shot down because people actually want *real* reform, that's what we were promised. That real reform is going to require reaching across the aisle no matter how you slice it. And there's lot of people who say, "well the Dems didn't ____ " and I would say, "Yeah, you kind of notice they're not in power?" Here it is, this is the Reps chance and the problem is, their standard bearer is one who's big on shortcuts.
that he's out there changing stuff for the better and making a difference just about every day
And that's the problem with Trump supporters, and that's not calling you one. All of those changes are so short lived. They're about as short lived as a new Trump hotel project. But they want to honestly believe that this is the real deal because just like Adams and Trump, they too feel jilted by the world. They worked hard for 30-40 some odd years only to have their job evaporate because of "Globalism", because of some outside force that they hardly understand or is just such a mess
Well that depends on your definition of "Agriculture". Are we talking growing plants or are we getting into GMO? Additionally, it's not a nothing condition. I think parent of your comment might be stretching a bit, but there will be a decrease, and each 1% decrease in yield or 1% increase in cost to grow, goes directly into the cost you pay at the store.
Good example. Wheat in the US. The kernels inside of the wheat, where we get flour, need a pretty stable environment. Upset the environment too much and you get falling numbers. Now we can compensate for that by taking more raw wheat into the batch to be milled, the side effect of that means that you get less refined good per bushel of raw good. Even if that's just a 1% decrease, that's 1% of all wheat that's having to go into enriching the batch as opposed to being sold. I won't go deeper here, but there's all kinds of books that have been published on the increase in falling numbers in US wheat production.
Now if you get into GMO there's all that stickiness (that is totally unfounded, seriously folks, GMOs are not going to turn you into a zombie) that goes along with it. But if nothing changes, basically the only things we will be able to grow are things we've invented in labs. It's kind of a strange thing to think that there is a good chance that one day, the only things people eat, are the things they created in a lab. The environment is some areas is changing faster than evolution acts. We've got technology to overcome that, the thing would be then that we're picking winners and losers on who gets to survive in a warmer world. Okay we'll modify the cow DNA to survive because they're so tasty. We'll modify the cat DNA to survive because they're so funny. F*** spiders, they can go extinct. I find the idea of it one part thrilling and one part horrifying.
Agriculture only goes so far when you also have to make stuff that people can afford (but if cost of the final product is no concern, then yeah, Mother Nature can go pop right on off there), GMO can take the topic into directions that sound like an Asimov novel. It's not impossible, we're humans and we're really cunning monkeys, but it's not about loosing everything, it's trying to maintain the lifestyle we have now, which doesn't seem like it is going to be possible circa 2100.
In all fairness that is that site's take on the paper that was published. The actual paper that they cite in it's paper states that a 40-year drought in the southwest region of the US (mostly CA), is roughly sitting at 12% a chance of starting within the next two decades. So sometime between when that paper was published (2015) and 2035, there is a 12% chance of a 40-year drought kicking off.
Lesson to learn here, you really shouldn't be taking a news site's ability to report science as fact. In fact, I'm paraphrasing as well since I really don't have the time to go over the whole paper, but you should give it a read. It's interesting to say the least.
Also I wanted to add. The President's tweet seems to indicate those who have already transitioned. That's different that those who elect to transition while in the service (aka would need HRT). However, this is a tweet so I really can't say much in the way of specific policy because it's not something like an EO.
It's important to remember that HRT isn't like diabetes. It's mostly used to reach a specific target of secondary sexual characteristics. There's nothing, short of surgery, that can undo natural puberty. After reaching the target, a doctor will discuss medication, counseling, or some combination of the two for any kind of mental health issues. However, HRT isn't needed once a specific target is met. If anything, there might be the requirement of medication for mental health, but considering that we're talking the military, mental health issues run rampant there trans or not.
FWIW There are time release options available that are implanted under the skin. I don't know how long they last and how often they're replaced, but I did want to just point that out.
I don't know who the AC person was that decided to go full on retard there is, but it's just simple misunderstanding on my part. You are correct in that hostnames cannot have underscore. I'll leave this here for all the other parts of DNS that do allow underscore. That said, my confusion was taking sub-domain and mixing it with hostname. Honest mistake on my part.
It's abundantly clear that systemd-resolved has quickly become a train wreck. It's inclusion in Ubuntu 16.10 was widely lamented and many folks have pointed out huge concerns for severaldifferentassumptions that it makes for fallbacks and erroneous configurations. That's not including the severaldifferentbugs that have plagued systemd-resolved thus far. Granted many of them are fixed but with the breakage what have we bought? Something that's a pretty basic task now requiring patch after patch. Additionally, what has this solved? Now we can make DNS configuration a bit easier to integrate across the board?
The bad rep that systemd especially resolved has obtained isn't just simply one where grey breads say "it's too different". It is one that time and time again, ignorant assumptions, bloated egos, and hasty code have led to a general distrust, especially when tools that have always worked are suddenly not working or worse still, become methods for exploits. I still think systemd is a vast improvement over the "ye olde init scripts", but while the idea is commendable, it's execution has been somewhat lack luster to put it mildly. There needs to be a serious "Come to Jesus" moment for the systemd team. You need to build trust if your going to build something that's rewriting the books. This is just another example of how that trust is being chipped away. Complexity of the task at hand aside, either the team is up to delivering or they are not. This ostinato where breakage just keeps happening needs a serious all hands or something to restore trust in the team guiding this project. Poettering, you are doing no favors to yourself nor your team by these stories. Deliver us from the hell of bad init if that's what you seek, but don't plunge us deeper into a different hell of your making and say that it's alright because you're the one who built it.
Slashdot Mirror
Most likely not a lot.
I wouldn't call the New York Post "fake news", but dang if their articles aren't just trash pieces. Usually, their stories have about as much investigation a fifth grader would put into a story. I've yet read a piece from their paper where I didn't follow it up with, "That's great and all but that only works if everyone on this planet thinks exactly like you, which they don't. You've provided no argument as to why anything you've just said should matter. Nor have you stated anything that isn't your opinion cloaked in generalities." NYP isn't worth you buying a copy of their paper even if they gave you $1.00 for taking a copy.
I think the argument, "You're getting Y Mbps! That ought to be enough!!" is missing the point a bit. What's going on is that an ISP offers package A. Neighborhood X has no problem keeping up with demand because the area was expected to draw bigger income earners when the fiber was laid down. Neighborhood Y has issues keeping up with demand because, to the ISP, net income in the area just makes it unattractive to lay more fiber in the area.
WARNING Personal rant below
I've got the exact same thing here where I live. Head over to a friend's house that's about seven miles down the road and their package just screams. Head back home, and I have the exact same package as friend, and my Internet is pretty much crap. We're in the same flipping city, the difference being that the area I live in is slightly cheaper housing (~$150k/unit) versus friend's neck of the woods being average of (~$300k/unit). It's irritating because you can literally see them out in his side of town laying more fiber down where I'll be doing good to get my Internet back up if lighting strikes one of the station boxes (literally took six "WORK" days before it got back up, tornado tears down one of the boxes on the other side of town and it's good as new two days later, same flipping storm!).
So yeah, I really do hope that these folks win, because it's just stupid to think "Oh I'll just get the same package that my friend has and it'll be all good" only to find out that since you decided to save a pretty penny and put the diff into your retirement and not buy one of those gaudy, super high ceiling/hard to AC properly, brick facade on only one side of the house, fully paved patio in the back, piece of crap houses that now you're doomed to have crap internet, even though you literally have the exact same thing as those who decided to buy one of those houses I just described.
Must have read it wrong, could of sworn it indicated 120 hours per cycle.
If they lose 10% in 60 cycles
Careful there, because not all cycles are created equal. It's indicated that they got 120 hours in a single cycle. So if we assume that we lose 10% for every 60 cycles, that's still sum(60*120*(1-n*10%),n = 0 -> 9). That's 39600 hours.or 4.5 years of usage. However, for a multiple number of reasons, I doubt this will see light anytime soon in a phone. There's a lot of lingering questions as to if it scales and what kind of self discharge these things are look at to name a few.
Nothing will get better; rather, these vile sentiments will fester
Hey there. Wasn't sure if you knew when WWII was, because this crap has been festering since then. Also then was before the Internet. So while you're not wrong there. Having them out in the open on the Internet didn't slow them down, having them go into the darker side of the Internet won't slow them down, the only thing people can do is continually reject their ideology every time it pops up. Just like we'll have to remind everyone from time to time why you vaccinate your kids. Success in one area leaves a vacuum for ignorance to grow in.
we'll have a tougher time anticipating the next Charlotsville, since it won't be so widely publicized
Oh that's good to know that the guy posted online that he was about to ram his car over someone. That would make it premeditated wouldn't it? You'd think the DA would have brought that up in the formal charges brought on the guy?
Good job, fuckwads.
You're welcome, see you next time this inevitably happens again and we all have this exact same conversation about slippery slopes and forcing them into the darkness. Human nature is fun like that.
So you think there is a possibility that a technologic advanced civilization can build a machine that runs for 25 million years
Yeah. Seeing how a proton can be stable for trillions upon trillions of years, I think that it is indeed possible to build atomic scaled machines that can last for a millionth of that scale. Especially in places of the universe where the dominating thing you'd be running into would be dark energy and photons, with the random hydrogen/helium nuclei every twenty to fifty thousand years.
Additionally, the machine wouldn't really need to run for 99% of the trip. Additionally, you could use radioactive half-life as a timer as opposed to standard electrical timers. Also, in the void between galaxies there's not going to be a real need for course correction. The ratio between things like globular clusters and the craft itself would be so small, changes to the trajectory would take several million years to build up to something. Additionally, since the motion of extra-galactic objects is so slow in relation to say the Milky Way or Andromeda's frame of reference, it's not like they couldn't correct for trajectory just as the craft left the galaxy.
However, that's putting it in terms we can understand, which in itself is pretty limited. But given that the universe has shown that things can be built that last billions if not trillions of years, it's not a stretch of the imagination to think that we can't do better one day in the future, or that someone hasn't done so already.
I detest these arguments because it literally ignores the dynamic nature of law, society, and basically how humans function in general. Life is a slippery slope bud it's just how it works. The reason that capitalist speech isn't ranking among Nazi speech is because people can show widely the public value of it over Nazi speech. Nazi speech literally has zero value to the public. There might come a day when the same becomes true for capitalism or for any other given topic. The entire point is that it's up to society to ensure that doesn't happen. I don't see massive droves of folks coming out of the woodwork to protest this move by Google which is a pretty good indicator that there close to zero people who actually value Nazis. So be there censorship or not, if society shuns your topic, it become a topic that eventually will get called the enemy. That's not dangerous ground, that's just how being human beings works. But of course, we're not the most logical race ever so perhaps being human is the dangerous thing here.
If you are a human
That's being severely limited in view. First and most importantly, this isn't a conversation where we limit the discussion to just humans. If that's the case, there's not a point to the discussion. Humanity is just now beginning to explore the cosmos, there's literally no telling what we might be able to do. Secondly, for humanity, we could figure out how to store consciousness and perfect cloning. Scale storage to account for millions of people and then send it off to another galaxy. When it gets there it 3D prints humans and restores their memory from the backup. And that's just working on ideas that we can think of currently. Imagine humanity in 10k years hence and there may exist technology incomprehensible to us today. Additionally, there very well could be a species that exists out there, that's already done this very thing and that's the whole point. If humans can think of it, I find it odd that it hasn't been done in the eight billion years since the Milky Way's arms formed. I find it also shortsighted to think that no one will ever do it in the trillions upon trillions of years we have till heat death, if that is indeed the ultimate fate of the universe. If no one ever does it, then it has to be a really good reason for that. And that's the center piece of the conversation, there has to be a really, really, really good reason that no one has done this (as far as we can tell). Either we're really bad at looking up at the cosmos (very possible) or there's something just over the horizon that's about to doom us all (also possible) or it's something we cannot even think about (most likely of all the ones stated). But thinking that you can hurl a human through space for 25 million years at any point in the vast expanse of time and space is just limiting yourself to the most recent 400 years of humanity.
if there's no FTL travel, and it's likely there is not, then HOW would we hear from someone ?
You say that, but that totally invalidates what you said prior to that.
A 100 million years is a long time
The Andromeda galaxy is only 780 kpc from us. At 99% the speed of light, that's only 2.5 million years. On a scale of 100 million years, that's totally doable multiple times over. That's the huge mystery of the Fermi paradox. Given medium time scales like G-type main sequence stars lifetimes, alien life has had enough time to hop between the big three galaxies in our local group and do a fly-by of the main stars in all three as well.
if there's no FTL travel, and it's likely there is not
Yeah, it's insanely likely that FTL is just sci-fi forever. I personally think anything higher than 90% c is just non-doable. So look back at the last paragraph in my comment. Say we slow everyone down to just 10% c. At 10% c, you can hop from one side of the Milky Way to the other in just a million years. Get to Andromeda in just 25 million years. That's still really short time spans. You could fly to Andromeda, send a message back and the sun still wouldn't have entered it's next phase, one billion years from now compared to 27 million years for what I just described.
First of all, there's the 2,000,000 year latency, and then the amount of power you would need to transmit that signal, etc...
All of those are insanely small scale issues, they're big things to us because we lack the ability to even fly to another planet, but if you're the type of society that can fly at 10% c, those are pretty simple tasks that might take 10k years to build a generator, 15k years to build the transmitter, etc. They just seems like big deals because we're nowhere near that kind of specie.
So millions of years is not a huge amount of time. But more importantly, becoming a traveler of the stars means you don't hold on to where you came from. You travel to Andromeda, that's who you are now. You don't have strong ties to Earth anymore, you're a seed of life, not an explorer. Humanity still clings to this notion that once we start, if we start, traveling the stars that we'll for some reason still treat Earth as this special place that we need to come back to or at the very least report back to. We might send a message, but after that, those humans are now their own thing. The idea of sending people to other planets isn't to save Earth, it isn't even to save our species because more than likely after a few thousand years on a different planet your DNA is going to change vastly. It's to save intellect, to keep the thinking/feeling part of the Universe going. As far as we know we're the first/only part of the universe that's got the thinking attribute and maybe just like how supernovae spread heavier elements, we need to get our butts in gear to start spreading this attribute across the galaxies (just the local group, the idea that we'll ever make it out of the local group is not even real with any kind of advancement). But that's just my take.
Food prices sky rocketed
I seriously, don't think you understand the sheer amount of corn that is grown in the US. To think that the small amount of ethanol that we produce actually affects the price of corn (and everything that relies on it) is seriously laughable. Business people are always looking for scapegoats to jack up the prices dude. That's like US economics 101. War in Iraq? Hell, raise the price of gasoline. Flood in Japan? Raise the price of Kraft cheese singles. Brexit? Might as well add $3 for everything made of cotton.
Poor people starved to death in the thousands
They got you hook, line, and sinker. The US alone has millions starving and the rationale for that is really complicated. However, people have pointed to the hungry in the US as proof for all kinds of things. Lack of religion in the the US, illegal immigration, terrorist, etc. So no one is surprised that someone decided to put the whole ethanol thing on the backs of the hungry as well.
Ethanol was a highly inefficiency gas
You'll get no argument from me here. Ethanol runs best in cars that are specifically made to run on that fuel. There's flex fuel cars that change the stroke of the engine to compensate for a higher mix of ethanol. They're alright, but an engine specifically made for the fuel would be better.
Don't get me wrong.
The ethanol industry aren't the most honest folks either. Someone decided that corn was the only supply of fuel when there's plenty of research that could have gone into producing fuel from Kudzu, a weed that no one really wants. That's just farmers wanting to make more and more money and in reality, whoever subsidizes their farm, is making an even bigger cut. These farmers usually just put into crap contracts that ensure they'll never become solvent in 100 years. Any new industry they try to expand into, the person with the funds eventually figures out how to get their cut before the farmer. So yeah, the ethanol folks aren't exactly hands clean either. But don't go buying that made up crap that ethanol is increasing your food prices. That's just bull they're using to charge you more for less food. Climate change thus far has had a way bigger impact than ethanol will ever have on the price of food. Even then, that plays only second to sheer greed and opportunity to jack up prices on unsuspecting dolts.
Where did they go wrong?
Simply put. Shortly after 2007 they lost serious focus. Back then the Web as a Desktop app was being touted around like the next big thing. The idea was floated around a lot in 2005 and Microsoft began working on Silverlight, the Unspeakable Horror (Flash) began "Air", Apple built a web browser that could do it called Safari (based on WebKit, which was based on KHTML/KJS which the KDE folks were blurring the lines between web and desktop to kind of mimic IE pre-lawsuit), JavaFX 1 was also there, and so on... Everyone thought turning a website into a desktop application was a good idea. Mozilla began Prism at that time and it basically wrecked the already poorly tossed together code base. Now, mind you this. Firefox was great when the only other game in town was IE back in 2004. But even in Firefox 1.0 the code base wasn't as modular as it is today and it ran not that great. However, since the majority of the web was the Unspeakable Horror, it was hard to notice. Additionally, HTML 4.01 wasn't all that complicated and JS engines that screamed weren't a thing.
Now when Apple took KHTML and KJS in 2001 and turned it into WebKit in 2003, Google took a whole lot of flippity, flip, flip notice about how quickly Apple did a turn around on that. When Firefox 1.0 hit, there were already rumors that Google was working on their own browser. The rate at which one could take the WebKit core and whip up a browser was insane. Firefox's Netscape code base could never be modified as quickly as WebKit could and it was all the rage.
Sometime in 2005, browser in the phone was the hotness in Silicon Valley. If web as a desktop application was big, being able to move those applications into a phone was bigger. Android was brought out by Google and Apple began working on iPhone. We know where that went, but a lot of folks think that smartphones began life as a means to push apps. It wasn't. Apple, Google, and Mozilla lit a fire under the W3C's ass to start on HTML5 to replace the Unspeakable Horror and all the other Sliverlights/AIRs/FXs out there. It helped that open source was also a hotness everywhere at that time.
Anyways, I'm babbling... Point being final call on HTML5 didn't begin till 2011. By that time app developers had already chosen a winner, native API over HTML5. The dragging of their feet basically doomed HTML5 from ever taking off big. Mozilla's investment in Prism was all for not. Their code base was a mess from all the things they kept doing to get Prism, plus playing catch up to Google who by 2011 was already halfway to Firefox. Firefox 4 is commonly cited as the downfall, but they had problems long before that, it's just that 3.5 used the old base and had minor fixes, while the base for Firefox 4 was, well a cluster fuck of ideas all unguided. Firefox 4 was bad, because Mozilla pushed it out in a rush in 2011 to try and get one last gasp for Prism and to do something about Chrome's rocketing usage. Massive failure, Firefox kills Prism a few months later.
When Mozilla saw that Prism was a waste they began on their next project Firefox OS. Unsurprisingly, that just made the entire code base even worse. Mozilla kept shifting their goals and trying to work with a code base that was nowhere as nimble as WebKit. IE saw the writing on the wall and that's where we get Edge, of course, they only saw it after smacking into the wall about 800 times, but they finally got the message. Firefox 57, is the first step Mozilla is taking to redoing the base. They've redone the JS engine, they've redone the rendering, they've redone a lot of bits and pieces since Firefox 4, but Firefox 57 is a more massive shift. Firefox 57 isn't a rewrite, but it is a serious step away from the old Netscape base, well it's not really fair to call it that since between 4 and 52 they've slowly shifted into something that's 10-15% Netscape, 20% ideas from Prism, 30% ideas from Firefox OS, and the rest is random crap to just make all those
but SeaMonkey and Thunderbird are still important
I hate to break it to you but Mozilla parted ways[*] with Thunderbird and SeaMonkey some time ago. The developers hired by Mozilla, mainly focus on Firefox/Rust/everything you just mentioned solely. Now that being a good thing or bad thing is, I am sure, a topic for discussion.
[*] Mozilla still proves legal advice/backing and hosting of code for the two projects. However, no Mozilla developer works on either of these projects directly (obviously there's dabbling). They are now community developed and overseen by Thunderbird Council and SeaMonkey Council respectively. Additionally, there is some leeway granted to these two projects in respect to Copyrighted material like logos and what not.
but certainly a measure of sanity.
Trust me when I say, all things in my life considered ads need to up their game on their attack of my sanity if they wish to compete with the folks I work with. And on that note, I am all behind the idea that meetings with the group of non-technicals that develop the requirements for our software projects, are broken up with intrusive ads.
Holy crap! Did you know you can get basically Pandora for free? And more than likely your car already has the equipment for it!! I usually plug the iPhone in before I start the car up, but one day I totally left it in the cup holder forgetting to plug it up. I thought that the silence would have been a cue for me to plug it in but boom! Music was playing when the car turned on. I looked at my phone, looked at the console of the car, back at the phone, back at the console. I just couldn't understand what this new "FM" device was! But it's basically free music. I got to work, turned off the car, waited a second, turned it back on, and boom the FM device was back!
Anyway, I wonder if Apple will ever build an app that allows me to access my "FM" device account? Also, is the membership built into the price of a car? I just don't understand how a streaming service can exist without me paying for it.
There's nothing wrong with streaming per se. I love Netflix, big Stranger Things fan, but the argument that I'm "saving" something by skipping ads I feel is quite silly to me. It was time that I originally planned to be non-productive. I planned on that time to yield nothing. So getting back the 18 minutes that I would have spent in ads still yields me $0 since that's the value I placed on that time originally. I just don't get this notion that every second of someone's life has some dollar and cents attached to it. We're not 100% productive beings, in fact that's very much the core reason we've invented things to increase our productivity.
If putting a price on every second someone is alive is your kind of thing, then more power to you. I'm not calling you wrong in any sense of the word because I just feel that this isn't one of those things that has a "correct" answer. It's just a matter of how one values their time. I'm sure there's pros and cons to either perspective, but I vote with my dollars based on how much I enjoy the content, not the lack or presence of ads.
I read a few comments here and I think there is something worth pointing out. This is part of the Test Pilot program and only is in your browser if you've opted in on the Test Pilot program and only then is it "added" to your install.
Do note, this isn't me condoning anything here, I'm just merely trying to point out that if you aren't in the Test Pilot program, then you're not seeing these tools/invasion of privacy/wherever you stand between those two points. I don't know what the ultimate intention is here and honestly I forgot my asbestos suit at home so I'll abstain from any flame.
Given the ongoing nature of the threats to disrupt the Commission's electronic comment ling system, it would undermine our system's security to provide a specific roadmap of the additional solutions to which we have referred
Wow, and the FCC is what I would consider a pretty bland department much like USDA or FCIC. But wow, what a way to totally derail any credibility the department had. Hint, anytime an agency thinks doing something totally opaque to public review is a good idea, it's usually not a good idea.
Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame)
I'll also add that he also setup an account for himself on MetaFilter to chit-chat with people about his book "How to Get a Real Education". Eventually it was found out that he also created other accounts to play the role of agreeable people who enjoyed his commentary.
I can say that Scott Adams and Donald Trump are cut of the same cloth in that they feel jilted from some sort of recognition. Ask Scott Adams, and he'd tell you that he feels like he's on equal, if not better, than say Bill Watterson who made a little comic about a boy and a tiger. That he doesn't receive the universal praise that he ought to, that's he's not elevated above all like his clearly superior intellect should entitle him to, is not an issue of his. No it's that society as a whole is incorrect. That there's something that robs him from the name recognition he's rightfully entitled to.
Trump suffers the same. He's always coveted the old rich. Names like Rockefeller, JP Morgan, etc. People who honestly built the wealth they had when they died. Trump was never that. He's always in the money circles always been seen as the shadow of his father's wealth. And that's driven some of Trump narrative, being both, "If they won't accept me I'll destroy them" and "Notice me Senpai". Trump's never had the wherewithal mentally to match "elites" so to say and so he's made it a point to put them at the opposite end of the spectrum of his campaign. Trump has wanted to shortcut every single step to becoming the next Rockefeller and it's for that reason that Trump has always fallen so short.
He's been pretty busy deporting illegal immigrants
And to me that's really spinning wheels but going nowhere. Because moving a person to one side of the border doesn't keep them on that side of the border. And that's a lot of Trump's policy. There's smoke, but there's no fire. Nothing is "long term", nothing is "a solution". Everything that has been done thus far can be summed up as, "What can I do today, that ultimately will be undone tomorrow, but will at least make me look good today?" It's just more short cutting the whole process and in the places where there is no short cut, it turns into a Twitter flame. Deporting folks, fine whatever, but you know what would be a real treat? Actually having a policy that solved the entire issue.
So I can't speak for others who bring up the question, "but what has he really done?" But I can say that when I ask this, what I'm looking for are the things that he's done, that will outlive his term (or terms) in office? There's nothing so far because EOs can just be rewritten by the next guy. The people you deport today will be the same people you deport next week. It's clear that there are currently zero countries that are willing to talk to him about the Paris accord and since it was a non-binding agreement there's no reason for them to do so. Healthcare keeps getting shot down because people actually want *real* reform, that's what we were promised. That real reform is going to require reaching across the aisle no matter how you slice it. And there's lot of people who say, "well the Dems didn't ____ " and I would say, "Yeah, you kind of notice they're not in power?" Here it is, this is the Reps chance and the problem is, their standard bearer is one who's big on shortcuts.
that he's out there changing stuff for the better and making a difference just about every day
And that's the problem with Trump supporters, and that's not calling you one. All of those changes are so short lived. They're about as short lived as a new Trump hotel project. But they want to honestly believe that this is the real deal because just like Adams and Trump, they too feel jilted by the world. They worked hard for 30-40 some odd years only to have their job evaporate because of "Globalism", because of some outside force that they hardly understand or is just such a mess
Well that depends on your definition of "Agriculture". Are we talking growing plants or are we getting into GMO? Additionally, it's not a nothing condition. I think parent of your comment might be stretching a bit, but there will be a decrease, and each 1% decrease in yield or 1% increase in cost to grow, goes directly into the cost you pay at the store.
Good example. Wheat in the US. The kernels inside of the wheat, where we get flour, need a pretty stable environment. Upset the environment too much and you get falling numbers. Now we can compensate for that by taking more raw wheat into the batch to be milled, the side effect of that means that you get less refined good per bushel of raw good. Even if that's just a 1% decrease, that's 1% of all wheat that's having to go into enriching the batch as opposed to being sold. I won't go deeper here, but there's all kinds of books that have been published on the increase in falling numbers in US wheat production.
Now if you get into GMO there's all that stickiness (that is totally unfounded, seriously folks, GMOs are not going to turn you into a zombie) that goes along with it. But if nothing changes, basically the only things we will be able to grow are things we've invented in labs. It's kind of a strange thing to think that there is a good chance that one day, the only things people eat, are the things they created in a lab. The environment is some areas is changing faster than evolution acts. We've got technology to overcome that, the thing would be then that we're picking winners and losers on who gets to survive in a warmer world. Okay we'll modify the cow DNA to survive because they're so tasty. We'll modify the cat DNA to survive because they're so funny. F*** spiders, they can go extinct. I find the idea of it one part thrilling and one part horrifying.
Agriculture only goes so far when you also have to make stuff that people can afford (but if cost of the final product is no concern, then yeah, Mother Nature can go pop right on off there), GMO can take the topic into directions that sound like an Asimov novel. It's not impossible, we're humans and we're really cunning monkeys, but it's not about loosing everything, it's trying to maintain the lifestyle we have now, which doesn't seem like it is going to be possible circa 2100.
In all fairness that is that site's take on the paper that was published. The actual paper that they cite in it's paper states that a 40-year drought in the southwest region of the US (mostly CA), is roughly sitting at 12% a chance of starting within the next two decades. So sometime between when that paper was published (2015) and 2035, there is a 12% chance of a 40-year drought kicking off.
Lesson to learn here, you really shouldn't be taking a news site's ability to report science as fact. In fact, I'm paraphrasing as well since I really don't have the time to go over the whole paper, but you should give it a read. It's interesting to say the least.
Look buddy I don't make the terminology. You take that up with doctors or whoever it is that you're angry/sad/depressed/confused/whatever at.
Also I wanted to add. The President's tweet seems to indicate those who have already transitioned. That's different that those who elect to transition while in the service (aka would need HRT). However, this is a tweet so I really can't say much in the way of specific policy because it's not something like an EO.
It's important to remember that HRT isn't like diabetes. It's mostly used to reach a specific target of secondary sexual characteristics. There's nothing, short of surgery, that can undo natural puberty. After reaching the target, a doctor will discuss medication, counseling, or some combination of the two for any kind of mental health issues. However, HRT isn't needed once a specific target is met. If anything, there might be the requirement of medication for mental health, but considering that we're talking the military, mental health issues run rampant there trans or not.
FWIW There are time release options available that are implanted under the skin. I don't know how long they last and how often they're replaced, but I did want to just point that out.
I don't know who the AC person was that decided to go full on retard there is, but it's just simple misunderstanding on my part. You are correct in that hostnames cannot have underscore. I'll leave this here for all the other parts of DNS that do allow underscore. That said, my confusion was taking sub-domain and mixing it with hostname. Honest mistake on my part.
It's abundantly clear that systemd-resolved has quickly become a train wreck. It's inclusion in Ubuntu 16.10 was widely lamented and many folks have pointed out huge concerns for several different assumptions that it makes for fallbacks and erroneous configurations. That's not including the several different bugs that have plagued systemd-resolved thus far. Granted many of them are fixed but with the breakage what have we bought? Something that's a pretty basic task now requiring patch after patch. Additionally, what has this solved? Now we can make DNS configuration a bit easier to integrate across the board?
The bad rep that systemd especially resolved has obtained isn't just simply one where grey breads say "it's too different". It is one that time and time again, ignorant assumptions, bloated egos, and hasty code have led to a general distrust, especially when tools that have always worked are suddenly not working or worse still, become methods for exploits. I still think systemd is a vast improvement over the "ye olde init scripts", but while the idea is commendable, it's execution has been somewhat lack luster to put it mildly. There needs to be a serious "Come to Jesus" moment for the systemd team. You need to build trust if your going to build something that's rewriting the books. This is just another example of how that trust is being chipped away. Complexity of the task at hand aside, either the team is up to delivering or they are not. This ostinato where breakage just keeps happening needs a serious all hands or something to restore trust in the team guiding this project. Poettering, you are doing no favors to yourself nor your team by these stories. Deliver us from the hell of bad init if that's what you seek, but don't plunge us deeper into a different hell of your making and say that it's alright because you're the one who built it.