I’m with you on GPS. But I can see wanting remote control and data to my smartphone if my hot tub is outdoors in the winter. I can turn it on from the warm house and be able to know when the tub is actually hot before going outside.
Actually, I'd probably go for the supersonic for eight hours.
I understand the argument. You can be comfortable for 17 hours or uncomfortable for 8. In that situation, though, I'd probably take the uncomfortable for 8 over the comfortable for 17.
The main reason, obviously, is that I can sit for eight hours and then lie down in a real bed. Yes, First Class is nice, but it certainly doesn't beat the nice queen-sized hotel bed and I can definitely find restaurants with much better food than what the airline serves.
Heck, didn't astronauts in the Space Shuttle pull about 3Gs? And as for age, John Glenn holds the record at 77. That said, there are a couple of astronauts in their 60s (Frank Musgrave, Dennis Tito) and plenty in their 50s.
I've worked for companies that have given notice to employees that their jobs will be discontinued in n months. Re-orgs and the like. And I've never had a company escort me out on the day I turned in my two-week notice (at least without paying me).
You're right--I've had days when I've come into work and I was laid off. Not a great day, granted. But at least they told me. Yes, the boss came into the conference room and said we were laid off, turned the meeting over to the HR person and walked out.
Ghosting is sort of the equivalent of showing up at the front door and finding the company is no longer there. Or, worse yet, not telling you you're fired and hoping you'll just figure it out.
One thing I always tell people is, "Figure out what you like to do. Then figure out a way to make money doing that."
If I'm going to spend eight hours a day, five days a week doing something, it better be something I enjoy doing. Now, I'll admit that I'm lucky--I get to do something I enjoy and make pretty good money doing it.
It's not that easy to do. Sure, it sounds easy--"I like to surf!" But how do you make money knowing how to surf? Well, you can compete, which is one way. But are you good enough to win contests? Are you good enough to get endorsement deals and the like? Because if you're not, that's not going to work. So you might look into surf shops. You might look into teaching. You might look into working for a bigger company that sells surfing equipment. Those all require different skills beyond just surfing.
If they paid me a LARGE enough wad of money, I'd have no problem whatsoever doing that and not growing...
Which is a perfectly reasonable short term view. The problem becomes, "What If You Lose That Job?"
At the risk of being ageist, I've known a few older programmers who don't want to learn anything new. They were making good money and just biding their time until they get to retirement age. They haven't kept up with the latest technology but they're pretty smart about the older product line--indispensable even. Then the company develops something new and they drop the old product line and here's our old employee out on the street. He made good money for awhile and he was a few years short of being able to comfortably retire. Now what? His skill set is antique and he can't find any work--even for a couple of years.
And that can happen really quickly in the tech world. So you're young and you're working that kind of job. You're making good money. Then all that goes away--the company goes belly-up or something. All you have to show for the last several years is a pile of money which certainly won't last forever. You now have to use that pile for things like food and gas and healthcare and, probably, learning something new because you didn't care about how your current position set you up for your next job. As long as they gave you a big hunk of money, you were happy.
You're not entirely wrong, mind you. Yes, I don't want to live in a crappy apartment and eat Ramen noodles all the time in order to work on really cool stuff. Conversely, I don't care if they pay me a big wad of money if I'm doing something that doesn't allow me to grow and learn new things.
But there is a happy medium out there, believe it or not, where they will pay you a reasonable amount and you sometimes get to do some interesting things.
Exactly. I've had bad DRAM before which caused the occasional inexplicable crash. I don't see any reason why SSDs would somehow be immune from this.
That said, most SMART codes are for mechanical hard drives. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that there isn't really a good way to test reliability for SSDs, so the SMART codes always come back as "A-OK!"
I've also heard of geniuses who go to WalMart (or wherever) buy thousands of dollars or merchandise and hand the clerk a million dollar bill. AND WANT THEIR CHANGE.
No, no, no.
A group of counterfeiters had a problem with their printing press and it started print $18 bills. So they figured they'd go to the local Walmart and ask for change. The Walmart person said, "Sure, how do you want it? Three sixes or two nines?"
The data on the phone was evidence of something. It could have exonerated her or it could have convicted her. But we'll never know because she destroyed the data on the phone.
Right. You do have to worry about that. Of course, if you cut down the right, you have to worry about getting doored, right hooked, hit crossing the intersection, or having to ride between moving cars on your left and parked cars on your right.
I mean, if you take the lane (which is safer, right?) you have to worry about being rear-ended by some idiot on a cell phone in a car. So you're saying it's safer for you to not take the lane?
[...] if a driver is involved in a collision with a vehicle in the intersection or junction of highways, after driving past a yield sign without stopping, the collision shall be deemed prima facie evidence of his failure to yield right-of-way.
In short, if you want to run a stop sign, fine. If something bad happens, it's your fault.
Frankly, this is where I get annoyed with cyclists. "It's all about my safety, unless my safety inconveniences me. Then it's someone else's fault."
Start with an obvious one: It is safer to stop at the stop sign and wait until traffic is clear before proceeding through the intersection. Period. So if you're saying that you're concerned about "actual safety", you would do that. So you're not interested in "actual safety." You're looking at the trade-off between safety and convenience. "I don't have to stop--I can see that there's nothing coming." Trust me, this is the same attitude a lot of motorists have when it comes to stop signs, too.
And it's fine until something bad happens. Then, suddenly, it becomes, "Oh My God! Everybody needs to watch out for me because I'm so vulnerable!" Or, you could stop and wait for traffic to clear. But that's inconvenient--you gotta get to work, get home, or break bikeybear's Strava score.
There's an old saw about motorists: "75% of all motorists believe they have above average driving skills. Which means that at least 25% of them are wrong."
I hear this from cyclists all the time: "We have better vision! We don't have windshields and A-Frames and the like blocking our views!" Of course, then I see the guy on the racing bike who has his head down in order to be more aerodynamic and, no, he does not have better vision.
They bitch when they're part of traffic and ride in the lane, and keep bitching if they ride on the side/shoulder, affording the opportunity to filter/split past traffic.
I agree with this. But some of this comes from cyclists who go back and forth.
Imagine a street with cars parked along the right side. Cyclists will ride down the middle of the road and they'll explain that they're doing this for their safety. If they ride towards the right, they could get doored (i.e., a car opening their door right in front of the cyclist). They can get right-hooked by a car that zooms past them and then turns right. By taking the lane, they are more visible.
So we continue down our imaginary road and we come to a stop signal--stop light or stop sign. There are three or four cars stopped. And the cyclist cuts between the parked cars and the cars waiting at the light--the exact same place they just said that they absolutely couldn't ride because it's so dangerous. Suddenly, I guess it's not so dangerous?
So they've passed the four cars and they're now at the intersection. Now what? Let's say there's a stop light. When the light turns green, those cars they passed will now want to pass them. They're now riding between the parked cars on the street after the light and the cars that they just passed. This isn't particular safe either. This is where the cyclists say, "See?! It's safer for us to run the stop light so we can get out in front of the cars and take the lane!"
Basically, cyclists put themselves in a dangerous position and then whine about how dangerous it is.
Here's a solution: Wait behind the last car. There. Now they don't have to worry about getting doored or right-hooked. They don't have to break the law and risk running a stop sign or stop light. They're more visible.
But, no, that means that they actually have to stop and cyclists hate that.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it depends...
I’m with you on GPS. But I can see wanting remote control and data to my smartphone if my hot tub is outdoors in the winter. I can turn it on from the warm house and be able to know when the tub is actually hot before going outside.
Why don't the police just shoot the drone flying 400' up a mile away on the other side of the airport with a shotgun?
The bullets go up, who cares where they come down? "That's not my department"
C'mon, Steve. If you want positive search results, do positive things...
Actually, I'd probably go for the supersonic for eight hours.
I understand the argument. You can be comfortable for 17 hours or uncomfortable for 8. In that situation, though, I'd probably take the uncomfortable for 8 over the comfortable for 17.
The main reason, obviously, is that I can sit for eight hours and then lie down in a real bed. Yes, First Class is nice, but it certainly doesn't beat the nice queen-sized hotel bed and I can definitely find restaurants with much better food than what the airline serves.
Heck, didn't astronauts in the Space Shuttle pull about 3Gs? And as for age, John Glenn holds the record at 77. That said, there are a couple of astronauts in their 60s (Frank Musgrave, Dennis Tito) and plenty in their 50s.
I've worked for companies that have given notice to employees that their jobs will be discontinued in n months. Re-orgs and the like. And I've never had a company escort me out on the day I turned in my two-week notice (at least without paying me).
You're right--I've had days when I've come into work and I was laid off. Not a great day, granted. But at least they told me. Yes, the boss came into the conference room and said we were laid off, turned the meeting over to the HR person and walked out.
Ghosting is sort of the equivalent of showing up at the front door and finding the company is no longer there. Or, worse yet, not telling you you're fired and hoping you'll just figure it out.
One thing I always tell people is, "Figure out what you like to do. Then figure out a way to make money doing that."
If I'm going to spend eight hours a day, five days a week doing something, it better be something I enjoy doing. Now, I'll admit that I'm lucky--I get to do something I enjoy and make pretty good money doing it.
It's not that easy to do. Sure, it sounds easy--"I like to surf!" But how do you make money knowing how to surf? Well, you can compete, which is one way. But are you good enough to win contests? Are you good enough to get endorsement deals and the like? Because if you're not, that's not going to work. So you might look into surf shops. You might look into teaching. You might look into working for a bigger company that sells surfing equipment. Those all require different skills beyond just surfing.
If they paid me a LARGE enough wad of money, I'd have no problem whatsoever doing that and not growing...
Which is a perfectly reasonable short term view. The problem becomes, "What If You Lose That Job?"
At the risk of being ageist, I've known a few older programmers who don't want to learn anything new. They were making good money and just biding their time until they get to retirement age. They haven't kept up with the latest technology but they're pretty smart about the older product line--indispensable even. Then the company develops something new and they drop the old product line and here's our old employee out on the street. He made good money for awhile and he was a few years short of being able to comfortably retire. Now what? His skill set is antique and he can't find any work--even for a couple of years.
And that can happen really quickly in the tech world. So you're young and you're working that kind of job. You're making good money. Then all that goes away--the company goes belly-up or something. All you have to show for the last several years is a pile of money which certainly won't last forever. You now have to use that pile for things like food and gas and healthcare and, probably, learning something new because you didn't care about how your current position set you up for your next job. As long as they gave you a big hunk of money, you were happy.
You're somewhat taking the extreme side here...
You're not entirely wrong, mind you. Yes, I don't want to live in a crappy apartment and eat Ramen noodles all the time in order to work on really cool stuff. Conversely, I don't care if they pay me a big wad of money if I'm doing something that doesn't allow me to grow and learn new things.
But there is a happy medium out there, believe it or not, where they will pay you a reasonable amount and you sometimes get to do some interesting things.
Exactly. I've had bad DRAM before which caused the occasional inexplicable crash. I don't see any reason why SSDs would somehow be immune from this.
That said, most SMART codes are for mechanical hard drives. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that there isn't really a good way to test reliability for SSDs, so the SMART codes always come back as "A-OK!"
Or a giant robot!
That's the next line of patents: Do something common, but in space.
There. I just patented Quick Sort...in space!
I think Chrysler might own the trademark for "Colt".
Which inexorably leads to this...
Gap.
That's what "gap" stands for: Great Looking Pants.
In Soviet Russia, Phones hand out free governments.
or something like that.
...and then they'll whine about how much bureaucracy and regulation there is.
...and then there's guys like Woz...
I've also heard of geniuses who go to WalMart (or wherever) buy thousands of dollars or merchandise and hand the clerk a million dollar bill. AND WANT THEIR CHANGE.
No, no, no.
A group of counterfeiters had a problem with their printing press and it started print $18 bills. So they figured they'd go to the local Walmart and ask for change. The Walmart person said, "Sure, how do you want it? Three sixes or two nines?"
I'll be here all week. Try the veal!
With Blackjack! And Hookers!
Religion, you have a case. Political? Not so much. Republicans are not a protected group.
Pretty easy, actually.
The data on the phone was evidence of something. It could have exonerated her or it could have convicted her. But we'll never know because she destroyed the data on the phone.
That's obstructing.
Right. You do have to worry about that. Of course, if you cut down the right, you have to worry about getting doored, right hooked, hit crossing the intersection, or having to ride between moving cars on your left and parked cars on your right.
I mean, if you take the lane (which is safer, right?) you have to worry about being rear-ended by some idiot on a cell phone in a car. So you're saying it's safer for you to not take the lane?
Speaking of Kindergarten...
If I were to say, "Cyclists run stop signs!" what's the first thing that cyclists will reply?
"Well, cars do it, too!"
Yes, cars do it, too. And, if they're caught by the police, they get punished. But if you do that to a cyclist? "They're picking on me!"
In a reasonable world, we would change the laws to allow people on bikes to yield at stop signs and go at red lights after a full stop [...]
Idaho has something like this--basically, they can treat a stop a sign as a yield sign.
What I like is that Idaho also has an interesting attachment to their Yield law:
[...] if a driver is involved in a collision with a vehicle in the intersection or junction of highways, after driving past a yield sign without stopping, the collision shall be deemed prima facie evidence of his failure to yield right-of-way.
In short, if you want to run a stop sign, fine. If something bad happens, it's your fault.
Frankly, this is where I get annoyed with cyclists. "It's all about my safety, unless my safety inconveniences me. Then it's someone else's fault."
Start with an obvious one: It is safer to stop at the stop sign and wait until traffic is clear before proceeding through the intersection. Period. So if you're saying that you're concerned about "actual safety", you would do that. So you're not interested in "actual safety." You're looking at the trade-off between safety and convenience. "I don't have to stop--I can see that there's nothing coming." Trust me, this is the same attitude a lot of motorists have when it comes to stop signs, too.
And it's fine until something bad happens. Then, suddenly, it becomes, "Oh My God! Everybody needs to watch out for me because I'm so vulnerable!" Or, you could stop and wait for traffic to clear. But that's inconvenient--you gotta get to work, get home, or break bikeybear's Strava score.
Cyclists have better all-around vision than cars.
There's an old saw about motorists: "75% of all motorists believe they have above average driving skills. Which means that at least 25% of them are wrong."
I hear this from cyclists all the time: "We have better vision! We don't have windshields and A-Frames and the like blocking our views!" Of course, then I see the guy on the racing bike who has his head down in order to be more aerodynamic and, no, he does not have better vision.
They bitch when they're part of traffic and ride in the lane, and keep bitching if they ride on the side/shoulder, affording the opportunity to filter/split past traffic.
I agree with this. But some of this comes from cyclists who go back and forth.
Imagine a street with cars parked along the right side. Cyclists will ride down the middle of the road and they'll explain that they're doing this for their safety. If they ride towards the right, they could get doored (i.e., a car opening their door right in front of the cyclist). They can get right-hooked by a car that zooms past them and then turns right. By taking the lane, they are more visible.
So we continue down our imaginary road and we come to a stop signal--stop light or stop sign. There are three or four cars stopped. And the cyclist cuts between the parked cars and the cars waiting at the light--the exact same place they just said that they absolutely couldn't ride because it's so dangerous. Suddenly, I guess it's not so dangerous?
So they've passed the four cars and they're now at the intersection. Now what? Let's say there's a stop light. When the light turns green, those cars they passed will now want to pass them. They're now riding between the parked cars on the street after the light and the cars that they just passed. This isn't particular safe either. This is where the cyclists say, "See?! It's safer for us to run the stop light so we can get out in front of the cars and take the lane!"
Basically, cyclists put themselves in a dangerous position and then whine about how dangerous it is.
Here's a solution: Wait behind the last car. There. Now they don't have to worry about getting doored or right-hooked. They don't have to break the law and risk running a stop sign or stop light. They're more visible.
But, no, that means that they actually have to stop and cyclists hate that.