Do you have directions that work to get this installed. The directions include SD card booting which obviously isnÃ(TM)t possible.
The included instructions are fine. They're not talking about booting off the SD card, they're taking about putting the ROM on the SD card so that you can install it. And by "SD card" they obviously don't mean a physical SD card; they're talking about android's "SD card" partition which is your internal storage (great terminology decision there, Google!).
The big steps are unlocking the bootloader and then flashing TWRP recovery. Once you have TWRP installed there are a number of ways you can copy the ROM over for installation. You can even connect a USB thumb drive if you have the appropriate dongle.
Just don't forget to download and install the google apps zip as well, assuming you want them. Otherwise you will have a google-less tablet.
So the fact that we don't have that storage right now is irrelevant. The question is whether we'll have it once we need it in the future.
Right, and that's the handwave. If you're going to depend on technology which doesn't yet exist then you may as well just keep burning fossil fuels and hope that fusion becomes a thing in 20 years.
It is, yes. But you and I both know that you haven't tried it, nor will anyone else who is reading your comment. Conspiracy theories are way too fun to risk actually testing.
Last week I was debating getting a pizza and then drove by a billboard advertising pizza. It was a bit unsettling because the whole discussion took place in my mind.
Do you really think it would have been nearly as easy to beat German without Soviet assistance?
Yes.
If most of the German Army and Air Force had been in the West?
That's a different question. They weren't in the west. Regardless of what the Russians did, Hitler - despite having a treaty with the Russians - made the idiotic mistake of splitting up his forces. As soon as he did that the Allied victory was assured. Supplying the Russians so that they could fight made sense, but even without their assistance Berlin was still doomed.
How many people have to die before we start to observe common sense and decide, once and for all, that putting self-driving cars on the same roads with non-self-driving cars is a bad idea?
50,000
Every time we go here, someone observes that "well, we just have to make the roads more hospitable to self-driving cars; we need built in signaling, dedicated paths for them, reflective whatever on all other objects on the road..."
Nonsense. You just need to stop walking out in front of moving vehicles.
Well, at least like 1/100th of that, anyway. Commies don't fight so good. Waves of untrained farmers don't do so well against crack troops with machienguns and tanks.
So I assume by your definition you consider a self-driving car, or even a pick-and-place machine to be meaningfully aware?
In a sense, sure. The problem is that every person I talk to seems to have a different definition of "aware" and "conscious", so I'm not sure how to answer that question. It all depends on what you mean by "aware".
But, that definition breaks down completely when we get into judging the realm of things that exist in fundamentally different environments. An amoeba appears aware because it acts in ways we can readily perceive. A plant on the other hand mostly acts far more subtly, though time-lapse photography can reveal apparently intentional activity. But what about an electron? It exists in a fundamentally different realm that we can only dimly perceive the rough boundaries of - how could we begin to determine if quantum non-determinism is a manifestation of random chance, or intentional choice?
Well, that's pretty simple really. Entities which make choices tend to introduce variance. You're suggesting that a nearly infinite number of quantum particles all choose to exhibit the same property - quantum non-determinism. I know it sounds weird, but quantum non-determinism is incredibly deterministic.
Given that every conscious system we're aware of has far more variance, that seems like a non-starter. But even if you assume that these entities are somehow different than all of those which we know to be conscious, it doesn't really change anything; the fact that they don't DO anything which would be indicative of a choice makes them indistinguishable from, and therefore functionally equivalent to, objects which cannot make a choice.
This is very similar to the argument for - and response to - a "Deistic god". If, by definition, he does nothing which would demonstrate his existence, then whether or not he exists is irrelevant. He's indistinguishable from a god who does not exist.
It's not that I don't believe awareness can't be tested for, just that we don't know how to do so in any manner that's not more far indicative of our own perceptual biases than any objective reality.
Given that awareness/consciousness is a concept which we dreamed up, what makes you think that it has an objective reality outside of our own perceptual biases?
Do the "inspectors" have the legal ability to arrest you or something? If not, why would you put up with that kind of nonsense from some ticket issuing dipshit?
Considering that the design was at least an order of magnitude ore complex,
How do you figure? It seems rather less complex to me.
more than twice as capable
This is just sheer nonsense. The falcon 9 can lift more in expendable mode. It can be reused if you want to lift less. It's cheaper, can carry multiple payloads, and is now capable of being retrofitted into a "heavy" configuration. So by what possible metric is the Saturn 1B even comparably capable, let alone twice as capable?
and it was done at a time 60 years ago when no one had any idea if it would work or not, it's an impressive achievement.
Yes, it absolutely was. But if you made it today of would be a mediocre achievement.
My point was a little different, anyway, but part of it was "ha-ha look at the stupid americans/NASA!" and the old bullcrap about Soyuz and how Russian steam-locomotive engineering is superior. When in fact we have made VASTLY more complex and capable systems, right from the beginning, and the Shuttle in particular is pointed to as a failure. By the standards posited, the Shuttle is quite superior to anything the Russians have ever. or ever likely will do.
Agreed. The Buran may have been comparable, but they scrapped it before it could do much.
If Musk and company had managed to screw up, with the benefit of the absolutely *vast* amount of nearly-free-for-anyone information from NASA and others, it would have been embarrassing. They are solving a much simpler problem, and only their own arrogance has made it even slightly challenging.
They massively reduced costs and improved capability by making novel use of composites; something no one else was really looking at. That, on it's own, was a huge gamble, and a major improvement, but they didn't stop there. They went on to champion, develop, and bring to fruition an idea which everyone else had written off as impractical: recovering rockets. Not only did they manage to recover them, they made it simple and cheap by figuring out how to land the damn things in a convenient location.
Is that what you're referring to when you use the word "arrogance"? If so, then I agree that they made it hard on themselves. And I agree that it was pretty arrogant to think that they could reduce costs, improve capability, and actually recover their launch vehicles. But goddamn did they ever deliver on that arrogance.
I'm pretty sure that this was not the original intention of this section of the law and that we can all agree that either Castioni had an incredible lawyer or the judge had just had (or was desperate to go to) lunch, or perhaps both - both as in lawyer and lunch, not both had and about to have lunch, though with judges back then one never can tell... Either way, the decision was clearly ridiculous.
I don't think so. You're looking at it through 21st century eyes, but this event took place in 1890.
While terrorism was certainly not unheard of back then, it was a relatively minor concern. Even today we don't really have much to worry from it; the only reason it panics us so much is because we've forgotten what it's like to be constantly faced with the threat of real warfare.
If you take the time to read through the entire linked court case, you'll find that the judges (Yes, there were more than one. Maybe they all went to lunch?) were primarily concerned with whether or not his actions constituted a personal vendetta against the victim, or were carried out in the pursuit of a political goal. If the former, they considered it an extraditable offense. If the latter, they agreed that it was not. Judge Hawkins directly quotes an earlier work written by Judge Stevens, which reads:
The third meaning which may be given to the words, and which I take to be the true meaning, is somewhat more complicated than either of those I have described. An act often falls under several different definitions. For instance, if a civil war were to take place, it would be high treason by levying war against the Queen. Every case in which a man was shot in action would be murder. Whenever a house was burnt for military purposes arson would be committed. To take cattle, &c., by requisition would be robbery. According to the common use of language, however, all such acts would be political offences, because they would be incidents in carrying on a civil war. I think, therefore, that the expression in the Extradition Act ought (unless some better interpretation of it can be suggested) to be interpreted to mean that fugitive criminals are not to be surrendered for extradition crimes, if those crimes were incidental to and formed a part of political disturbances.
The intent there is quite clear. They are cognizant of the difference between crimes motivated by personal greed or passion, and ones carried out in order to affect political change... and they feel that it is not the place of English courts to take sides in the latter. If the English government is to take sides in a civil war then it is the government which must make that commitment; not the courts.
Notwithstanding, the GP's point is valid, since terrorism is, by definition, violence against persons or property to achieve a political aim. If extradition had a general exception of the nature you quoted, as opposed to a rather more specific if never codified exception, then terrorists could never be extradited.
His point would be valid if he were talking about the USA refusing to extradite terrorists today; it is not valid when talking about the 1890s, or even the 1980s.
I have to say your entire post was fascinating and highly informative, but strikes me as just as much an example of how messed up case law can become when based on one or two previous bad decisions. I'd hazard a guess that this was one of the reasons that the extradition treaties were revisited.
I suspect that your guess is absolutely correct. Our priorities have changed. We are no longer concerned about interfering in civil wars, nor are we worried about formidable nation states invading our borders as a result of such meddling. All of that started to change in the 1980s, but didn't really take off until the 90's. After all, by then 1990s the USSR had fallen, the USA was the last standing superpower, and NATO was an organization which was f
The very quotation you use says that "the offence was incidental to and formed part of political disturbances". That implies that there was no active intent to kill, merely a culpable action that happened to result in death.
No, that's "accidental". The word "incidental" has a completely different meaning. In this particular case it translates, roughly, to:
"Hey, when you storm a palace in order to overthrow a government, you gots ta kill some politicians. Que Sera Sera."
Slashdot Mirror
Is it confirmation bias if I think you're an asshole for saying things that make me think you're an asshole?
No, that's the hostile attribution bias. Basically, when you're an asshole, you tend to see assholes everywhere.
Do you have directions that work to get this installed. The directions include SD card booting which obviously isnÃ(TM)t possible.
The included instructions are fine. They're not talking about booting off the SD card, they're taking about putting the ROM on the SD card so that you can install it. And by "SD card" they obviously don't mean a physical SD card; they're talking about android's "SD card" partition which is your internal storage (great terminology decision there, Google!).
The big steps are unlocking the bootloader and then flashing TWRP recovery. Once you have TWRP installed there are a number of ways you can copy the ROM over for installation. You can even connect a USB thumb drive if you have the appropriate dongle.
Just don't forget to download and install the google apps zip as well, assuming you want them. Otherwise you will have a google-less tablet.
So the fact that we don't have that storage right now is irrelevant. The question is whether we'll have it once we need it in the future.
Right, and that's the handwave. If you're going to depend on technology which doesn't yet exist then you may as well just keep burning fossil fuels and hope that fusion becomes a thing in 20 years.
I don't think that the 2013 era Nexus 7's get security updates anymore ... Bummer too, because I really liked that tablet.
Here you go:
Wifi only - https://download.lineageos.org...
4g - https://download.lineageos.org...
Easy to verify.
It is, yes. But you and I both know that you haven't tried it, nor will anyone else who is reading your comment. Conspiracy theories are way too fun to risk actually testing.
Last week I was debating getting a pizza and then drove by a billboard advertising pizza. It was a bit unsettling because the whole discussion took place in my mind.
I sometimes purposely misuse the term "clip" because it triggers gun extremists and throws them into fits of pedantry which exposes ...
No you don't, pope fatso. You're just too stupid to know any better. Nice attempt to be anonymous though. Not at all transparent.
No, talking to anonymous cowards is a ponzi scheme.
I enjoy making money at the expense of fools.
Do you really think it would have been nearly as easy to beat German without Soviet assistance?
Yes.
If most of the German Army and Air Force had been in the West?
That's a different question. They weren't in the west. Regardless of what the Russians did, Hitler - despite having a treaty with the Russians - made the idiotic mistake of splitting up his forces. As soon as he did that the Allied victory was assured. Supplying the Russians so that they could fight made sense, but even without their assistance Berlin was still doomed.
The thing I love best about these articles is they always signal a great opportunity to buy Tesla stock at a temporarily discounted price.
He's a special little tyke.
How many people have to die before we start to observe common sense and decide, once and for all, that putting self-driving cars on the same roads with non-self-driving cars is a bad idea?
50,000
Every time we go here, someone observes that "well, we just have to make the roads more hospitable to self-driving cars; we need built in signaling, dedicated paths for them, reflective whatever on all other objects on the road..."
Nonsense. You just need to stop walking out in front of moving vehicles.
"They still havenâ(TM)t amounted to anything at will be out of business in short order."
- Anonymous Coward, 2004
I knew someone who shot turkeys with a fucking AR-15. Just empty his clip, drink a few cans of Shiner Bock and load up another 30 round clip.
No you didn't. If you actually knew someone with an AR-15 he would have broken your nose for repeatedly calling it a "clip".
Yep. Even better deal for the rooskies, though.
Saved us the 23 million lives the Russians lost
Well, at least like 1/100th of that, anyway. Commies don't fight so good. Waves of untrained farmers don't do so well against crack troops with machienguns and tanks.
saving their own asses
FTFY
Ah, that grand old time when the US armed and supplied the Soviet Union.
FTFY
So I assume by your definition you consider a self-driving car, or even a pick-and-place machine to be meaningfully aware?
In a sense, sure. The problem is that every person I talk to seems to have a different definition of "aware" and "conscious", so I'm not sure how to answer that question. It all depends on what you mean by "aware".
But, that definition breaks down completely when we get into judging the realm of things that exist in fundamentally different environments. An amoeba appears aware because it acts in ways we can readily perceive. A plant on the other hand mostly acts far more subtly, though time-lapse photography can reveal apparently intentional activity. But what about an electron? It exists in a fundamentally different realm that we can only dimly perceive the rough boundaries of - how could we begin to determine if quantum non-determinism is a manifestation of random chance, or intentional choice?
Well, that's pretty simple really. Entities which make choices tend to introduce variance. You're suggesting that a nearly infinite number of quantum particles all choose to exhibit the same property - quantum non-determinism. I know it sounds weird, but quantum non-determinism is incredibly deterministic.
Given that every conscious system we're aware of has far more variance, that seems like a non-starter. But even if you assume that these entities are somehow different than all of those which we know to be conscious, it doesn't really change anything; the fact that they don't DO anything which would be indicative of a choice makes them indistinguishable from, and therefore functionally equivalent to, objects which cannot make a choice.
This is very similar to the argument for - and response to - a "Deistic god". If, by definition, he does nothing which would demonstrate his existence, then whether or not he exists is irrelevant. He's indistinguishable from a god who does not exist.
It's not that I don't believe awareness can't be tested for, just that we don't know how to do so in any manner that's not more far indicative of our own perceptual biases than any objective reality.
Given that awareness/consciousness is a concept which we dreamed up, what makes you think that it has an objective reality outside of our own perceptual biases?
Do the "inspectors" have the legal ability to arrest you or something? If not, why would you put up with that kind of nonsense from some ticket issuing dipshit?
It's $200 AUD. That's like $1.50 US.
Thanks for that. I was briefly tempted to RTFA but your comment definitely killed that urge.
Considering that the design was at least an order of magnitude ore complex,
How do you figure? It seems rather less complex to me.
more than twice as capable
This is just sheer nonsense. The falcon 9 can lift more in expendable mode. It can be reused if you want to lift less. It's cheaper, can carry multiple payloads, and is now capable of being retrofitted into a "heavy" configuration. So by what possible metric is the Saturn 1B even comparably capable, let alone twice as capable?
and it was done at a time 60 years ago when no one had any idea if it would work or not, it's an impressive achievement.
Yes, it absolutely was. But if you made it today of would be a mediocre achievement.
My point was a little different, anyway, but part of it was "ha-ha look at the stupid americans/NASA!" and the old bullcrap about Soyuz and how Russian steam-locomotive engineering is superior. When in fact we have made VASTLY more complex and capable systems, right from the beginning, and the Shuttle in particular is pointed to as a failure. By the standards posited, the Shuttle is quite superior to anything the Russians have ever. or ever likely will do.
Agreed. The Buran may have been comparable, but they scrapped it before it could do much.
If Musk and company had managed to screw up, with the benefit of the absolutely *vast* amount of nearly-free-for-anyone information from NASA and others, it would have been embarrassing. They are solving a much simpler problem, and only their own arrogance has made it even slightly challenging.
They massively reduced costs and improved capability by making novel use of composites; something no one else was really looking at. That, on it's own, was a huge gamble, and a major improvement, but they didn't stop there. They went on to champion, develop, and bring to fruition an idea which everyone else had written off as impractical: recovering rockets. Not only did they manage to recover them, they made it simple and cheap by figuring out how to land the damn things in a convenient location.
Is that what you're referring to when you use the word "arrogance"? If so, then I agree that they made it hard on themselves. And I agree that it was pretty arrogant to think that they could reduce costs, improve capability, and actually recover their launch vehicles. But goddamn did they ever deliver on that arrogance.
Where is "green"? The idea of "greeness"?
In our brains, and in our written works.
Is "greeness" built anew, by every individual organism?
Nope.
These are simplistic questions
I agree.
but they lead to important distinctions.
Really? Which ones?
I'm pretty sure that this was not the original intention of this section of the law and that we can all agree that either Castioni had an incredible lawyer or the judge had just had (or was desperate to go to) lunch, or perhaps both - both as in lawyer and lunch, not both had and about to have lunch, though with judges back then one never can tell... Either way, the decision was clearly ridiculous.
I don't think so. You're looking at it through 21st century eyes, but this event took place in 1890.
While terrorism was certainly not unheard of back then, it was a relatively minor concern. Even today we don't really have much to worry from it; the only reason it panics us so much is because we've forgotten what it's like to be constantly faced with the threat of real warfare.
If you take the time to read through the entire linked court case, you'll find that the judges (Yes, there were more than one. Maybe they all went to lunch?) were primarily concerned with whether or not his actions constituted a personal vendetta against the victim, or were carried out in the pursuit of a political goal. If the former, they considered it an extraditable offense. If the latter, they agreed that it was not. Judge Hawkins directly quotes an earlier work written by Judge Stevens, which reads:
The third meaning which may be given to the words, and which I take to be the true meaning, is somewhat more complicated than either of those I have described. An act often falls under several different definitions. For instance, if a civil war were to take place, it would be high treason by levying war against the Queen. Every case in which a man was shot in action would be murder. Whenever a house was burnt for military purposes arson would be committed. To take cattle, &c., by requisition would be robbery. According to the common use of language, however, all such acts would be political offences, because they would be incidents in carrying on a civil war. I think, therefore, that the expression in the Extradition Act ought (unless some better interpretation of it can be suggested) to be interpreted to mean that fugitive criminals are not to be surrendered for extradition crimes, if those crimes were incidental to and formed a part of political disturbances.
The intent there is quite clear. They are cognizant of the difference between crimes motivated by personal greed or passion, and ones carried out in order to affect political change ... and they feel that it is not the place of English courts to take sides in the latter. If the English government is to take sides in a civil war then it is the government which must make that commitment; not the courts.
Notwithstanding, the GP's point is valid, since terrorism is, by definition, violence against persons or property to achieve a political aim. If extradition had a general exception of the nature you quoted, as opposed to a rather more specific if never codified exception, then terrorists could never be extradited.
His point would be valid if he were talking about the USA refusing to extradite terrorists today; it is not valid when talking about the 1890s, or even the 1980s.
I have to say your entire post was fascinating and highly informative, but strikes me as just as much an example of how messed up case law can become when based on one or two previous bad decisions. I'd hazard a guess that this was one of the reasons that the extradition treaties were revisited.
I suspect that your guess is absolutely correct. Our priorities have changed. We are no longer concerned about interfering in civil wars, nor are we worried about formidable nation states invading our borders as a result of such meddling. All of that started to change in the 1980s, but didn't really take off until the 90's. After all, by then 1990s the USSR had fallen, the USA was the last standing superpower, and NATO was an organization which was f
The very quotation you use says that "the offence was incidental to and formed part of political disturbances". That implies that there was no active intent to kill, merely a culpable action that happened to result in death.
No, that's "accidental". The word "incidental" has a completely different meaning. In this particular case it translates, roughly, to:
"Hey, when you storm a palace in order to overthrow a government, you gots ta kill some politicians. Que Sera Sera."