What do you think the electricity rates will be in 10, 20, and 30 years?
How much do you think the $10,000 you spent on those panels would be worth in 10, 20, and 30 years, if you had instead invested it at an annual return of 6%?
If you're going to project forward in time you have to do so for all of the relevant factors, not just the ones which make your argument look good.
You mean that a country which is building thousands of brand new coal power plants is achieving higher efficiency than a nation which is operating mostly decades-old designs? No way! Wow. Mind blown.
They make the same tile "cases" but with none of the internal components. You install those in the areas which don't get much sunlight so your roof looks and performs consistently while keeping the cost down.
Absolutely. All those pour souls who sarcastically ridicule my flat earth beliefs are really just doing it order to make themselves feel better about their own life choices. How very wise you are!
So people spent 60-90 years playing broken telephone before writing it down. And then it was written down by people with their own political agendas. And then 300-ish years some of the stories were selected and others rejected in order to paint a specific narrative.
Yep, must be 100% accurate truth straight from the lips of the almighty.
In announcing the agreement, Obama said that paying the $400 million -- plus $1.3 billion in interest -- was saving American taxpayers billions of dollars. The Iranians had been seeking more than $10 billion at arbitration.
There's a sucker born every minute.
"No, honey, I didn't 'overpay for a used shitbox'. I got this classic 1973 Ford Pinto for only $50,000 when they were asking $250,000! I saved us $200,000!!"
Yep, this is also why the Japanese American community is so crime ridden and empoverished. Because racism didn't end with the closing of the internment camps.
Right, and because your RC helicopter also plummets out of the sky, that means real helicopters do too. Thank you for that valuable input; you've totally changed my mind.
Which makes me wonder about all these designs that are being built in the form of drones...not even an aerodynamic body to at least try and fly to the ground. Pretty much a brick.
This is a common misconception. People believe that if a helicopter engine quits in flight it just plummets to the ground like a brick. On the contrary, a helicopter with a dead engine can often be easier to land safely than many fixed wing aircraft. Depending on how exactly these "drones" operate they may or may not be similarly capable of landing without propulsion. The shape of the aircraft is immaterial.
As a CSE who graduated almost 30 years ago, I can take a stab at explaining the historical difference between memory and storage and also why some of the technologies have strange names.
Your explanation was excellent, so thank you for that, but I wasn't confused about the actual difference between the concepts. I was pointing out that the terminology is confusing because the line between memory and storage can be rather fuzzy at times. Your statement that flash is "memory with a storage interface" just makes that more apparent. It's a great description, but it also perfectly illustrates why we often use the terms interchangeably.
They were kidnapped, made other people's property, oppressed and systematically discriminated against for centuries.
That's the simple knee-jerk answer, sure. It doesn't explain why other similarly oppressed groups have thrived, nor does it explain why murder and violent crime rates in the black community have increased as opression/discrimination have decreased. Like most simple "answers" it raises more questions than it answers. It's only satisfying to those who prefer not to think too hard.
Any tool we invent will be abused. You may as well say "I for one don't think fire should be used at all, because anyone who thinks it won't be abused just hasn't been paying attention".
If you're thinking of it in those terms then your opinion on the subject is irrelevant. The question isn't whether it will be abused; the question is whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
IMO, having CCTV cameras everywhere is a step too far.
I agree with pretty much the entirety of your very well thought out comment, but I'm curious on what basis you've formed this particular opinion. I myself am rather undecided on how I feel about CCTV surveillance, and to what extent it is or isn't acceptable... so I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on the matter.
And hold you for questioning, they haven't arrested you. But you still have to be sent to the police station and held in a cell for a day. They still haven't arrested you, they only got you in to question.
That's not how that works. If they are holding you then they have arrested you. They may not have charged you with anything, but they certainly have arrested you.
Typically that doesn't happen unless you refuse to speak with them in the first place. In the vast majority of cases their investigation will consist of:
1. Looking at the match and determining immediately that the computer was wrong. 2. Stopping you and asking you for ID and then determining that the computer was wrong. 3. Questioning you further, asking about your whereabouts at the time when the crime was committed, checking your aliby, and determining that the computer was wrong.
At every stage of that process a large number of the original "matches" will be discarded. The remaining pool of innocent suspects will be far smaller than the original 9/10 quoted in the article. That's assuming that along the way they don't hit on a "true match", in which the entirety of the remaining pool will be discarded. Either way your odds of actually being arrested are incredibly low, unless you're one of those "sovereign citizen" cunts... in which case you should be pretty used to it by now.
No, people are just mixing up numbers. The detection rate refers to natches made during one specific event (a football game) the arrests refer to a much longer period of time. How many of those arrests originated from data gathered at the actual game is not stated.
In no world could I represent those numbers as "pretty darn good".
It's pretty darn good when you consider the fact that human beings couldn't possibly cross-reference even a tiny fraction of those 1 million faces against a database of tens or hubdreds of thousands of known criminals, whereas they can fairly easily check 38,000 specific matches picked up by a computer. I'd go beyond "pretty darn good"; it's downright revolutionary.
This is exactly using technology for something it is completely unsuited.
That's hilarious. To me it seems like they're using it for something it's incredibly well suited to.
It scanned 65,000 people in a public place. Of those it flagged some 2,500 for further assessment. Human officers, who were monitoring the crowd already, then examined the matches and discarded ones which were clearly wrong. The rest were investigated further.
How exactly is that using technology for something it's completely unsuited? Do you honestly think it would be better to have hundreds of cops standing there with books full of mugshots, manually trying to match people in the crowd?
Current system: supervisor tells subordinates "We got an anonymous tip that GrumpySteen had sex with a goat. Go investigate him."
New system: supervisor tells subordinates "The computer says GrumpySteen matches the photo of a guy who had sex with a goat. Go investigate him."
What's the difference, exactly? Have you actually thought this through? Or is it just your knee-jerk reaction to scream "uhrmaghurd conspiracy" every time someone develops some new technology?
Slashdot Mirror
What do you think the electricity rates will be in 10, 20, and 30 years?
How much do you think the $10,000 you spent on those panels would be worth in 10, 20, and 30 years, if you had instead invested it at an annual return of 6%?
If you're going to project forward in time you have to do so for all of the relevant factors, not just the ones which make your argument look good.
That's a retarded comparison. Total energy use in US is higher than in China. Not just higher per person, but higher overall.
You mean that a country which is building thousands of brand new coal power plants is achieving higher efficiency than a nation which is operating mostly decades-old designs? No way! Wow. Mind blown.
They make the same tile "cases" but with none of the internal components. You install those in the areas which don't get much sunlight so your roof looks and performs consistently while keeping the cost down.
Absolutely. All those pour souls who sarcastically ridicule my flat earth beliefs are really just doing it order to make themselves feel better about their own life choices. How very wise you are!
Like "white people are racist slave owners"? I guess that is technically longer ...
In the same way that A Christmas Story is sufficient, sure.
Oh, they took them down? No problem; wait 5 minutes.
I've actually read the whole series, and a follow on, and it's entertaining fiction.
For a second there I thought you were talking about the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran; the original trilogy. And the Book of Mormon; the follow-on.
So people spent 60-90 years playing broken telephone before writing it down. And then it was written down by people with their own political agendas. And then 300-ish years some of the stories were selected and others rejected in order to paint a specific narrative.
Yep, must be 100% accurate truth straight from the lips of the almighty.
In announcing the agreement, Obama said that paying the $400 million -- plus $1.3 billion in interest -- was saving American taxpayers billions of dollars. The Iranians had been seeking more than $10 billion at arbitration.
There's a sucker born every minute.
"No, honey, I didn't 'overpay for a used shitbox'. I got this classic 1973 Ford Pinto for only $50,000 when they were asking $250,000! I saved us $200,000!!"
Oh darn, only one order of magnitude. Well there goes that plan.
Racism didn't end with Jim Crow
Yep, this is also why the Japanese American community is so crime ridden and empoverished. Because racism didn't end with the closing of the internment camps.
Right, and because your RC helicopter also plummets out of the sky, that means real helicopters do too. Thank you for that valuable input; you've totally changed my mind.
Which makes me wonder about all these designs that are being built in the form of drones...not even an aerodynamic body to at least try and fly to the ground. Pretty much a brick.
This is a common misconception. People believe that if a helicopter engine quits in flight it just plummets to the ground like a brick. On the contrary, a helicopter with a dead engine can often be easier to land safely than many fixed wing aircraft. Depending on how exactly these "drones" operate they may or may not be similarly capable of landing without propulsion. The shape of the aircraft is immaterial.
As a CSE who graduated almost 30 years ago, I can take a stab at explaining the historical difference between memory and storage and also why some of the technologies have strange names.
Your explanation was excellent, so thank you for that, but I wasn't confused about the actual difference between the concepts. I was pointing out that the terminology is confusing because the line between memory and storage can be rather fuzzy at times. Your statement that flash is "memory with a storage interface" just makes that more apparent. It's a great description, but it also perfectly illustrates why we often use the terms interchangeably.
They were kidnapped, made other people's property, oppressed and systematically discriminated against for centuries.
That's the simple knee-jerk answer, sure. It doesn't explain why other similarly oppressed groups have thrived, nor does it explain why murder and violent crime rates in the black community have increased as opression/discrimination have decreased. Like most simple "answers" it raises more questions than it answers. It's only satisfying to those who prefer not to think too hard.
Any tool we invent will be abused. You may as well say "I for one don't think fire should be used at all, because anyone who thinks it won't be abused just hasn't been paying attention".
If you're thinking of it in those terms then your opinion on the subject is irrelevant. The question isn't whether it will be abused; the question is whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
IMO, having CCTV cameras everywhere is a step too far.
I agree with pretty much the entirety of your very well thought out comment, but I'm curious on what basis you've formed this particular opinion. I myself am rather undecided on how I feel about CCTV surveillance, and to what extent it is or isn't acceptable ... so I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on the matter.
And hold you for questioning, they haven't arrested you. But you still have to be sent to the police station and held in a cell for a day. They still haven't arrested you, they only got you in to question.
That's not how that works. If they are holding you then they have arrested you. They may not have charged you with anything, but they certainly have arrested you.
Typically that doesn't happen unless you refuse to speak with them in the first place. In the vast majority of cases their investigation will consist of:
1. Looking at the match and determining immediately that the computer was wrong.
2. Stopping you and asking you for ID and then determining that the computer was wrong.
3. Questioning you further, asking about your whereabouts at the time when the crime was committed, checking your aliby, and determining that the computer was wrong.
At every stage of that process a large number of the original "matches" will be discarded. The remaining pool of innocent suspects will be far smaller than the original 9/10 quoted in the article. That's assuming that along the way they don't hit on a "true match", in which the entirety of the remaining pool will be discarded. Either way your odds of actually being arrested are incredibly low, unless you're one of those "sovereign citizen" cunts ... in which case you should be pretty used to it by now.
No, people are just mixing up numbers. The detection rate refers to natches made during one specific event (a football game) the arrests refer to a much longer period of time. How many of those arrests originated from data gathered at the actual game is not stated.
I don't think you understand how population distributions work ...
In no world could I represent those numbers as "pretty darn good".
It's pretty darn good when you consider the fact that human beings couldn't possibly cross-reference even a tiny fraction of those 1 million faces against a database of tens or hubdreds of thousands of known criminals, whereas they can fairly easily check 38,000 specific matches picked up by a computer. I'd go beyond "pretty darn good"; it's downright revolutionary.
This is exactly using technology for something it is completely unsuited.
That's hilarious. To me it seems like they're using it for something it's incredibly well suited to.
It scanned 65,000 people in a public place. Of those it flagged some 2,500 for further assessment. Human officers, who were monitoring the crowd already, then examined the matches and discarded ones which were clearly wrong. The rest were investigated further.
How exactly is that using technology for something it's completely unsuited? Do you honestly think it would be better to have hundreds of cops standing there with books full of mugshots, manually trying to match people in the crowd?
Current system: supervisor tells subordinates "We got an anonymous tip that GrumpySteen had sex with a goat. Go investigate him."
New system: supervisor tells subordinates "The computer says GrumpySteen matches the photo of a guy who had sex with a goat. Go investigate him."
What's the difference, exactly? Have you actually thought this through? Or is it just your knee-jerk reaction to scream "uhrmaghurd conspiracy" every time someone develops some new technology?