There are a gazillion people driving pickups that never leave city streets. They're pretty much a status symbol, especially among young men...huge super duty trucks with upsized tires that rarely leave the road. I've even seen ones with ultra-low-profile tires on massive rims.
If it's being used for real work I have no problems...but I think it's a waste of resources to drive a massive vehicle around for daily commuting in the city.
Yes, of *course* he was mostly testing low-end models, one of the criteria was a price limitation!
Certainly if budget is increased then you can include more enterprise level drives which would be expected to have a capacitor for controlled shutdown. The whole point of the test is whether any of the low-budget drives behave well during power outages.
The whole point of some of these changes is to make the food no longer attractive (or possibly even toxic) to pests. It seems reasonable that the changes required to do this may have some impact on people as well.
That said, direct genetic modification is a lot less likely to cause problems than the radiation-based mutation where they just blast it and see what they end up with--that ends up changing a lot more DNA than the direct modification would, and has far fewer labelling restrictions.
Ask me to write a red-black tree from scratch and I'd probably have to look it up. It's been 15 years since I had to care about it since every project I've worked on has already had basic infrastructure available.
On the other hand, I've rewritten parts of the linux process scheduler, tracked down DMA bugs in eth drivers, added new syscalls, tracked down and fixed bugs in locking primitives in glibc, worked in mips/powerpc/arm/x86 assembly, etc.
There are lots of small towns that simply don't have access to real high-speed links. I just checked, and there are towns in my province (canadian prairies) that only have 1.5 mbps connectivity and most of the smaller places max out at 5mbps. Most of these places you'd be better off with a 4G mobile hotspot for each classroom.
You can get "ecosmart" fixtures at Home Depot that are made by Cree that replace entire 4" and 6" pot fixtures. They're quite nice, I have four of the 6" replacements. They're even dimmable, though the fact that the colour doesn't shift when you dim them takes a bit of getting used to.
I haven't found good options to replace fluorescent tube fixtures...but that's less of an issue since a T8 is not all that much worse than LED for efficiency.
Around here a lot of electrical power is from coal and it can be very cold in winter (we usually hit -40 several times), so on some days burning natural gas may be better for the environment than using a heat pump.
Around here gas energy costs about a third as much as electric energy, and our electricity mostly comes from fossil fuel anyways, so unless you can get an average COP of 3 or more then gas makes more sense (and is far easier to set up).
For larger installations (high rise, hospital, etc.) then a dual system makes sense where you can use the gas heat on really cold days and the heat pump the rest of the time...but that starts to get pricy for a single dwelling.
Most people can't make as much in their "off" time as they do during work, so it's difficult to put a dollar value on your time.
That said, you can "make" a lot of money not eating convenience foods. You can save roughly $60/hr by buying large chunks of meat and shaving it yourself. Chopping your own carrots gives similar savings.
That said, if you'd really rather not cook and can affort to eat out, then go for it.
A hurricane comes in and wipes out a huge swath of land. A this point individual charity doesn't work very well, because many of the people that know the people involved are themselves also involved.
At some point the scale of a problem becomes big enough that individual charity is no longer effective. This is not to say that we shouldn't be charitable as individuals, but that there is a role for government support of people in trouble.
I can use paper checks entirely for free, but if I want to transfer funds directly to someone else's account the bank wants a fairly substantial fee for the service even though it could be done entirely automatically with no person in the loop.
I have a no-frills online bank that will let me transfer funds for free to other bank accounts, but they have to be *my* accounts and I have to send in a form and a void check first and it takes a while to set up each account.
On the other hand, I can use a paper check at no charge. (They even send me new checks for free.)
This makes no sense. A check is simply a piece of paper with bank account information on it. Why can't I enter that information manually (or scan it electronically) and do a direct transfer into someone's account?
It can't be security, since there will be a direct record of the transaction. It would be no more risky than an existing inter-account transfer.
Anyone producing nerve gas, or antipersonnel cluster munitions, or weaponized biological agents designed to actually be used (as opposed for research into how to counteract them) should definitely feel bad about what they're doing. These things have no other purpose than to be immorally used against people.
Someone producing a hunting rifle can likely feel fine about what they're doing even though there is a chance it could be used against a person. However, if you know that the hunting rifle you're making is intended to be used by some despotic ruler for hunting and killing people, you should probably feel bad about it.
Military drones can be used for many useful purposes, but they have also been used to kill a lot of innocent people.
Slashdot Mirror
There are a gazillion people driving pickups that never leave city streets. They're pretty much a status symbol, especially among young men...huge super duty trucks with upsized tires that rarely leave the road. I've even seen ones with ultra-low-profile tires on massive rims.
If it's being used for real work I have no problems...but I think it's a waste of resources to drive a massive vehicle around for daily commuting in the city.
Yes, of *course* he was mostly testing low-end models, one of the criteria was a price limitation!
Certainly if budget is increased then you can include more enterprise level drives which would be expected to have a capacitor for controlled shutdown. The whole point of the test is whether any of the low-budget drives behave well during power outages.
If I need X joules of heat for my house, I can burn natural gas, use resistance heat, or use a heat pump. They're all equivalent.
The bulb in an easy-bake oven is actually used as a heating element, not for illumination.
The whole point of some of these changes is to make the food no longer attractive (or possibly even toxic) to pests. It seems reasonable that the changes required to do this may have some impact on people as well.
That said, direct genetic modification is a lot less likely to cause problems than the radiation-based mutation where they just blast it and see what they end up with--that ends up changing a lot more DNA than the direct modification would, and has far fewer labelling restrictions.
Ask me to write a red-black tree from scratch and I'd probably have to look it up. It's been 15 years since I had to care about it since every project I've worked on has already had basic infrastructure available.
On the other hand, I've rewritten parts of the linux process scheduler, tracked down DMA bugs in eth drivers, added new syscalls, tracked down and fixed bugs in locking primitives in glibc, worked in mips/powerpc/arm/x86 assembly, etc.
There are lots of small towns that simply don't have access to real high-speed links. I just checked, and there are towns in my province (canadian prairies) that only have 1.5 mbps connectivity and most of the smaller places max out at 5mbps. Most of these places you'd be better off with a 4G mobile hotspot for each classroom.
I suspect the vectorized version of fact(1000000) is faster than the naive implementation.
You want one like linseed oil that will heat up via chemical reaction.
if (a && b=f(a) && c=g(b)) {
do stuff with a and b and c
}
If you convert that into the other format then you need to add something like six lines of code and two levels of nested if statements.
You can get "ecosmart" fixtures at Home Depot that are made by Cree that replace entire 4" and 6" pot fixtures. They're quite nice, I have four of the 6" replacements. They're even dimmable, though the fact that the colour doesn't shift when you dim them takes a bit of getting used to.
I haven't found good options to replace fluorescent tube fixtures...but that's less of an issue since a T8 is not all that much worse than LED for efficiency.
Around here a lot of electrical power is from coal and it can be very cold in winter (we usually hit -40 several times), so on some days burning natural gas may be better for the environment than using a heat pump.
It's going down to -22F (-30C) tomorrow night.
Around here gas energy costs about a third as much as electric energy, and our electricity mostly comes from fossil fuel anyways, so unless you can get an average COP of 3 or more then gas makes more sense (and is far easier to set up).
For larger installations (high rise, hospital, etc.) then a dual system makes sense where you can use the gas heat on really cold days and the heat pump the rest of the time...but that starts to get pricy for a single dwelling.
but simply given the design it's really hard to get good emissions controls on a 2-stroke.
Most people can't make as much in their "off" time as they do during work, so it's difficult to put a dollar value on your time.
That said, you can "make" a lot of money not eating convenience foods. You can save roughly $60/hr by buying large chunks of meat and shaving it yourself. Chopping your own carrots gives similar savings.
That said, if you'd really rather not cook and can affort to eat out, then go for it.
Going out and going shopping can be a social activity. You meet your neighbors, get to know the people at the stores, get some exercise, etc.
Who knows, you might meet someone interesting at the grocery store...
If it breaks, the company pays a local repair guy to come to my shop to fix it.
If I know exactly what I want, what's the point in paying more at a local store? If I need some assistance though, then buying local makes sense.
A hurricane comes in and wipes out a huge swath of land. A this point individual charity doesn't work very well, because many of the people that know the people involved are themselves also involved.
At some point the scale of a problem becomes big enough that individual charity is no longer effective. This is not to say that we shouldn't be charitable as individuals, but that there is a role for government support of people in trouble.
Priced like a nexus 5, while I'm dreaming.
Their main purpose is to provide profit for the shareholders.
One way of doing that is to extract as many fees as possible from retail banking customers while doing as little to earn the fees as possible.
I clued into this ages ago, so I use a no-fee online account for the vast majority of my personal banking.
I can use paper checks entirely for free, but if I want to transfer funds directly to someone else's account the bank wants a fairly substantial fee for the service even though it could be done entirely automatically with no person in the loop.
Makes zero sense...
I have a no-frills online bank that will let me transfer funds for free to other bank accounts, but they have to be *my* accounts and I have to send in a form and a void check first and it takes a while to set up each account.
On the other hand, I can use a paper check at no charge. (They even send me new checks for free.)
This makes no sense. A check is simply a piece of paper with bank account information on it. Why can't I enter that information manually (or scan it electronically) and do a direct transfer into someone's account?
It can't be security, since there will be a direct record of the transaction. It would be no more risky than an existing inter-account transfer.
In reality, in the software world, all too often the patents are protecting what people want to do, or the behaviour of the system.
Chemical/biological weapons for example.
Anyone producing nerve gas, or antipersonnel cluster munitions, or weaponized biological agents designed to actually be used (as opposed for research into how to counteract them) should definitely feel bad about what they're doing. These things have no other purpose than to be immorally used against people.
Someone producing a hunting rifle can likely feel fine about what they're doing even though there is a chance it could be used against a person. However, if you know that the hunting rifle you're making is intended to be used by some despotic ruler for hunting and killing people, you should probably feel bad about it.
Military drones can be used for many useful purposes, but they have also been used to kill a lot of innocent people.