You're not making me feel better. I don't know if there is a big difference between 'most people don't believe in evolution' and 'most people think they should say they don't believe in evolution.'
Actually, I'd say the later is worse. Whether you think we're here as a result of evolution or creation, you're not going anywhere without thinking for yourself. Someone who examines the evidence and concludes creation is most probable is (IMNSHO) mistaken, but can be reasoned with. Someone who believes in evolution just because that's what they've been told is lost.
In the same way that Darth Vader killed Luke Skywalker's father in The Empire Strikes Back. O[bs]ama was just tired of leading a double life, so he retired his multiple personality.
(just kidding)
I think Chancellor Palpatine/Darth Sidious is a better analogy. There wasn't a time where Vader and Anakin were fighting for opposite sides, unlike the period of time Palpatine/Sidious was the leader for both sides of the Clone Wars.
Ok, I'll not mod the troll for what it is. But that condescending "reality liberal bias" shit is getting really old.
Just to point to a counter example. Greece would prefer to stick with its liberal policies and continue spending government money it doesn't have. In this case, and I am not claiming that this is true in all cases, reality has a decidedly conservative bias. Greece needs to make heavily conservative moves with respect to their government spending or they are doomed. And no, the liberal "raise taxes" move isn't going to work, either.
So, Greece is living in a reality that has a conservative bias. Through proof by contradiction, the lie that "reality has a liberal" bias (in all cases) is patently false.
I don't think you're making the point you think you are. Spending money you don't have is a thoroughly conservative value. In the USA, sure people claiming to be conservatives talk about responsibly government spending, but when they get in to office, it's been 30 years of "deficits don't matter." Even now the presumed Republican nominee for president is running on a platform of cutting taxes and raising defense spending. How is that not spending money you don't have?
I suppose you know this is true, as you say so yourself in your comment. I don't have the solution to the Greece situation, but isn't 'the liberal "raise taxes" move' an effort to get money to spend? While liberals in the USA have traditionally been "tax-and-spend," doesn't that contradict your point? It's the conservatives who have been "borrow-and-spend" AKA spending money they don't have.
There may be situations where the conservative course of action is the best solution, but that does not mean reality has a conservative bias. (I don't think reality has a liberal (or any) bias either. I do think the current reality in the USA shows liberal values (in moderation) work. I say that makes liberals more biased to embrace reality while conservatives biased to deny it.)
If you developed your communication skills and talked to some of these "women" you'd know they wear a lot inexpensive costume jewelry while the nice stuff is at home. Why?
For the same reason guys buy cheap watches--they don't want worry all day about it getting lost, scratched, or broken.
BTW, nice and professional != expensive. Perhaps that's the difference between being an adult and playing dress-up to look like one.
Once all/most cars are automated, they would be able to go 100+ mph in areas traditionally 50 mph and 150+ mph in areas traditionally 65 mph. This is of course weather permitting and the road isn't flagged as craptastic.
What part of the driveless-car AI suspends the laws of physics? The AI-driven car won't have any mass or momentum? You think the people inside the car won't mind being throw around the interior as they whip around curves designed for slower speeds? Heck, maybe they'll enjoy a sudden introduction to the dashboard when the AI slams on the brakes.
You could have cars traveling 100 mph almost bumper to bumper on highways that are currently at 55mph. This would allow you to have more roads designated cars-only to avoid many of the pitfalls of mixed traffic. The next step will likely be driverless cars with the option to switch to manual (think Demolition Man) for areas that are not driverless-friendly.
What part of the driveless-car AI suspends the laws of physics? No more traffic? So has Google rewritten the rules of fluid dynamics?
"100 mph almost bumper to bumper on highways that are currently at 55mph"? So the AI-driven car won't have any mass or momentum? You think the people inside the car won't mind being throw around the interior as they whip around curves designed for slower speeds? Heck, maybe they'll enjoy a sudden introduction to the dashboard when the AI slams on the brakes.
So the AI will respond to conditions faster than a human driver. How does that change the speed rating on your tires? Or lessen the braking distance of the car?
By the look of their press release, I'd say they are trying to convert all of the metrosexual Apple users to Dell brand users with shiny and an OSX-esque GUI. Function and capability don't appear to play into the equation much.
We saw this 10 year ago with "The Eminem Show". That album was everywhere online before it went on sale. It was like a virus--it was hard to be online during the Spring of 2002 and NOT download a copy.
Then it was released, debuted at #1 on the Billboard charts, sold over 1 million copies the first week, and was the best selling album of 2002.
I guess a story like this is good as another example to drive the point home. But really, not news.
Still, new drives are expensive, I bought one recently, but for use in addition to all the old ones. Buying a 2TB drive just to replace all the old drives (with no gain in total capacity) is really not worth it and puts most of the data on a single drive (at least now if one drive fails I don't lose all the data, so I can just make multiple copies of the really important data and put them on different drives).
2 TB drives are a little over $100. (I recently purchased 2 for a NAS.)
I did a little web searching and back of the envelope calculations. It seems power consumption of HDDs hasn't changed much over the last 5 years. What has changed, however, is power per GB as storage capacities have changed.
If you have a 2TB drive drawing 8 watts and pay $0.11 kWh, running the drive for 5 years will cost about $38.57. Add the cost of the drive (e.g. $120) and your 5-year cost is $158.57.
If you have 4 500-GB drives with no out-of-pocket cost, your power cost for running those 4 drives for 5 years is about $154.28.
So you saved 4 bucks and change. Plus you get a higher risk of failure with multiple older drives rather than a single new drive.
You mention the redundancy of multiple drives but also say the new drive has no gain in capacity. Well, you only get one or the other. If you're using 4x500 GB as redundant storage, you don't have the same capacity as a single 2 TB drive.
If you want the same storage AND redundancy, you'll need more than 4 of those 500-GB drives, and that pushes up your cost.
I don't think anyone is saying a new or newish 500 GB SATA drive isn't worth using. They're saying a 80 GB IDE drive, even MiB, isn't new enough to expect reliability.
And if you're in a position where you need to spend money to use the 80 GB drive, you can likely spend a similar amount on a new drive that will be orders of magnitude larger, have a higher expected reliability, and use less power.
Oh, one other thing to hate about my model is the damn "turn on the tail/parking lights" switch on top of the steering column. Every so often the car wash guys switch it on while wiping the interior and, if I don't notice it (such as when parking it outside in bright sunlight), sure enough -- dead battery next day. They seem to have fixed this on later models.
LOL. The only time I ever touched that switch was just before getting a jump start after getting the interior cleaned.:)
Do you have one of the Subarus with the cup holder that pops out of the dash?
If so, not only do you not exaggerate, but you've left out the part about blocking the climate controls as well. My ru was a great car. Cup holder was the only thing about it I didn't like.
For the sounds system, you can try to become a 'touch typist' and work the controls without seeing them, but if you want to turn on the A/C or adjust the temperature, you pretty much have to hold your cup one hand while adjusting the controls with the other.
At what point was gold so cheap people didn't bother to bend over to pick up a gold bar? By stable, I don't mean whether gold is $800/ounce or $1800. I mean, is gold worth more than it takes to dig it out of the ground?
The answer is, yes. And has been yes for thousands of years.
As for BitCoin and stability, as another responder to my comment said, BitCoin is a vehicle for exchange, not savings. You don't take all your savings and exchange for BitCoin (unless you're a speculator). You pick up enough BitCoin for whatever good or service you're purchasing today.
The long term success of BitCoin does not depend on the exchange rate BitCoin/$$ or $$/BitCoin. It depends on BitCoin having some value over 0.
So which do think will first hit the threshold of, worth less on the market than it costs to produce? Gold or BitCoin. I think BitCoin.
Slashdot Mirror
You're not making me feel better. I don't know if there is a big difference between 'most people don't believe in evolution' and 'most people think they should say they don't believe in evolution.'
Actually, I'd say the later is worse. Whether you think we're here as a result of evolution or creation, you're not going anywhere without thinking for yourself. Someone who examines the evidence and concludes creation is most probable is (IMNSHO) mistaken, but can be reasoned with. Someone who believes in evolution just because that's what they've been told is lost.
Obama single handily Killed Osama
In the same way that Darth Vader killed Luke Skywalker's father in The Empire Strikes Back. O[bs]ama was just tired of leading a double life, so he retired his multiple personality.
(just kidding)
I think Chancellor Palpatine/Darth Sidious is a better analogy. There wasn't a time where Vader and Anakin were fighting for opposite sides, unlike the period of time Palpatine/Sidious was the leader for both sides of the Clone Wars.
Honestly, and speaking as a New Yorker, I think the public wants the mayor to go fuck off. So, would Hizzoner please resign and move to Boston?
1. No thanks. We have enough annoying politicians as it is. But you do have Trump, so you have our sympathies.
2. "Hizzoner" is the worst word ever. I always read it as 'HIZ-zone-er'. WTF is a HIZ-zone-er? Shouldn't it be 'Hiz'oner'?
Because people like you tried dabbling in Eugenics before and it wasn't considered moral?
Allowing people to have the freedom to make poor choices--even ones that cause bad health and potentially premature death--is not eugenics.
that's sad that the bar is so low that 100 is considered the average IQ.. 100 is extremely stupid btw.
Wha???
No armbands. They'll just be identified by their pieces of flair.
Ok, I'll not mod the troll for what it is. But that condescending "reality liberal bias" shit is getting really old.
Just to point to a counter example. Greece would prefer to stick with its liberal policies and continue spending government money it doesn't have. In this case, and I am not claiming that this is true in all cases, reality has a decidedly conservative bias. Greece needs to make heavily conservative moves with respect to their government spending or they are doomed. And no, the liberal "raise taxes" move isn't going to work, either.
So, Greece is living in a reality that has a conservative bias. Through proof by contradiction, the lie that "reality has a liberal" bias (in all cases) is patently false.
I don't think you're making the point you think you are. Spending money you don't have is a thoroughly conservative value. In the USA, sure people claiming to be conservatives talk about responsibly government spending, but when they get in to office, it's been 30 years of "deficits don't matter." Even now the presumed Republican nominee for president is running on a platform of cutting taxes and raising defense spending. How is that not spending money you don't have?
I suppose you know this is true, as you say so yourself in your comment. I don't have the solution to the Greece situation, but isn't 'the liberal "raise taxes" move' an effort to get money to spend? While liberals in the USA have traditionally been "tax-and-spend," doesn't that contradict your point? It's the conservatives who have been "borrow-and-spend" AKA spending money they don't have.
There may be situations where the conservative course of action is the best solution, but that does not mean reality has a conservative bias. (I don't think reality has a liberal (or any) bias either. I do think the current reality in the USA shows liberal values (in moderation) work. I say that makes liberals more biased to embrace reality while conservatives biased to deny it.)
If you developed your communication skills and talked to some of these "women" you'd know they wear a lot inexpensive costume jewelry while the nice stuff is at home. Why?
For the same reason guys buy cheap watches--they don't want worry all day about it getting lost, scratched, or broken.
BTW, nice and professional != expensive. Perhaps that's the difference between being an adult and playing dress-up to look like one.
The yellow one is the sun.
If the grandparents are supposed to be such an important part in their lives: move.
So everyone for whom food is an important part of their life should live on a farm?
So basically, your AI-driven car can go 100 mph any place a human driver could go 100 mph.
Once you have the know-how and the hardware to do this, how is 97 km different from 16 km different from across the room?
Part of this is getting photons from point A to point B. But with fibre optics, couldn't they do 1000 or even 10,000 km with the same effort as 97?
Once all/most cars are automated, they would be able to go 100+ mph in areas traditionally 50 mph and 150+ mph in areas traditionally 65 mph. This is of course weather permitting and the road isn't flagged as craptastic.
What part of the driveless-car AI suspends the laws of physics? The AI-driven car won't have any mass or momentum? You think the people inside the car won't mind being throw around the interior as they whip around curves designed for slower speeds? Heck, maybe they'll enjoy a sudden introduction to the dashboard when the AI slams on the brakes.
You could have cars traveling 100 mph almost bumper to bumper on highways that are currently at 55mph. This would allow you to have more roads designated cars-only to avoid many of the pitfalls of mixed traffic. The next step will likely be driverless cars with the option to switch to manual (think Demolition Man) for areas that are not driverless-friendly.
What part of the driveless-car AI suspends the laws of physics? No more traffic? So has Google rewritten the rules of fluid dynamics?
"100 mph almost bumper to bumper on highways that are currently at 55mph"? So the AI-driven car won't have any mass or momentum? You think the people inside the car won't mind being throw around the interior as they whip around curves designed for slower speeds? Heck, maybe they'll enjoy a sudden introduction to the dashboard when the AI slams on the brakes.
So the AI will respond to conditions faster than a human driver. How does that change the speed rating on your tires? Or lessen the braking distance of the car?
I don't see where all this magic is coming from.
Evidence is mounting that research is riddled with positive bias.
Maybe that's just what the researchers wanted to find.
Would you claim it is just instinct that causes cats to lurk on stairs, and they're not planning for when a person walks by?
I assumed they were wasting billions in taxpayer dollars.
Hundreds of millions is an improvement.
By the look of their press release, I'd say they are trying to convert all of the metrosexual Apple users to Dell brand users with shiny and an OSX-esque GUI. Function and capability don't appear to play into the equation much.
Bingo.
We saw this 10 year ago with "The Eminem Show". That album was everywhere online before it went on sale. It was like a virus--it was hard to be online during the Spring of 2002 and NOT download a copy.
Then it was released, debuted at #1 on the Billboard charts, sold over 1 million copies the first week, and was the best selling album of 2002.
I guess a story like this is good as another example to drive the point home. But really, not news.
Still, new drives are expensive, I bought one recently, but for use in addition to all the old ones. Buying a 2TB drive just to replace all the old drives (with no gain in total capacity) is really not worth it and puts most of the data on a single drive (at least now if one drive fails I don't lose all the data, so I can just make multiple copies of the really important data and put them on different drives).
2 TB drives are a little over $100. (I recently purchased 2 for a NAS.)
I did a little web searching and back of the envelope calculations. It seems power consumption of HDDs hasn't changed much over the last 5 years. What has changed, however, is power per GB as storage capacities have changed.
If you have a 2TB drive drawing 8 watts and pay $0.11 kWh, running the drive for 5 years will cost about $38.57. Add the cost of the drive (e.g. $120) and your 5-year cost is $158.57.
If you have 4 500-GB drives with no out-of-pocket cost, your power cost for running those 4 drives for 5 years is about $154.28.
So you saved 4 bucks and change. Plus you get a higher risk of failure with multiple older drives rather than a single new drive.
You mention the redundancy of multiple drives but also say the new drive has no gain in capacity. Well, you only get one or the other. If you're using 4x500 GB as redundant storage, you don't have the same capacity as a single 2 TB drive.
If you want the same storage AND redundancy, you'll need more than 4 of those 500-GB drives, and that pushes up your cost.
So how are new drives expensive?
1. why spend it if you don't need to? Is another $10 on the electricity bill each month going to cause me to go hungry or lose my home?
No, but that's doesn't mean at the end of every month I take a $10 bill and throw it away because I am so rich.
2. More electricity usage means more heat. This compounds the cost if you pay for cooling and shortens the life of components.
Do you have every light and every electric appliance in your home on and running 24x7? Why not?
I don't think anyone is saying a new or newish 500 GB SATA drive isn't worth using. They're saying a 80 GB IDE drive, even MiB, isn't new enough to expect reliability.
And if you're in a position where you need to spend money to use the 80 GB drive, you can likely spend a similar amount on a new drive that will be orders of magnitude larger, have a higher expected reliability, and use less power.
Oh, one other thing to hate about my model is the damn "turn on the tail/parking lights" switch on top of the steering column. Every so often the car wash guys switch it on while wiping the interior and, if I don't notice it (such as when parking it outside in bright sunlight), sure enough -- dead battery next day. They seem to have fixed this on later models.
LOL. The only time I ever touched that switch was just before getting a jump start after getting the interior cleaned. :)
Do you have one of the Subarus with the cup holder that pops out of the dash?
If so, not only do you not exaggerate, but you've left out the part about blocking the climate controls as well. My ru was a great car. Cup holder was the only thing about it I didn't like.
For the sounds system, you can try to become a 'touch typist' and work the controls without seeing them, but if you want to turn on the A/C or adjust the temperature, you pretty much have to hold your cup one hand while adjusting the controls with the other.
Steering? That's why god gave you knees.
At what point was gold so cheap people didn't bother to bend over to pick up a gold bar? By stable, I don't mean whether gold is $800/ounce or $1800. I mean, is gold worth more than it takes to dig it out of the ground?
The answer is, yes. And has been yes for thousands of years.
As for BitCoin and stability, as another responder to my comment said, BitCoin is a vehicle for exchange, not savings. You don't take all your savings and exchange for BitCoin (unless you're a speculator). You pick up enough BitCoin for whatever good or service you're purchasing today.
The long term success of BitCoin does not depend on the exchange rate BitCoin/$$ or $$/BitCoin. It depends on BitCoin having some value over 0.
So which do think will first hit the threshold of, worth less on the market than it costs to produce? Gold or BitCoin. I think BitCoin.