Yor any other bottom feeders. These concentrate the toxins in the environment and are horribly bad for you.
This is the same moronic bullshit that uneducated fisherman think up. What part of the food chain concentrates toxins? Is it "bottom-feeders?" Is it known to science?! Is it a mystery where we can just make up any random answer and it might be true? No. No, no, no, no, and no.
Predators are the animals that concentrate toxins. Bottom feeders only concentrate toxins in very narrow conditions, for example in a bay with large amounts of water pollution. Predators concentrate all of the environmental toxins, including ones from bottom feeders!
So you have some idiot fisherman accusing carp of concentrating toxins, but carp eat mostly plants and insects and are very low on the food chain; they only concentrate a little bit of toxins, mostly because of their long lifespan. A trout, that eats mostly meat, is concentrating way more toxins than a carp!
This is why fish like Red Snapper, which are bottom feeders, have less toxins than Tuna; they're both carnivores, but tuna are higher on the food chain; more of their prey are also themselves predators, whereas most of the prey of a Snapper are small herbivores.
Most bottom feeders are omnivores, they are not very high on the food chain.
Think of all a people having fun... picture in your brain cruises, vacations, and large family gatherings. Imagine giving all of them up, and then picture your lifestyle without them. Contemplate that you may live an extra year or two, and then ask yourself if it is worth it.
Hint: It's not.
Think of all the people being using their brains... picture in your mind's eye insightful comments, inventions, conventions. Imagine giving all that up, imagine living without using your brain. Contemplate that you may get a very slight feeling of ignorant virtue, and then ask yourself if it is worth it.
Hint: The whole setup is just a false equivalence.
Weighing food is the big thing in what you said; most people would never be willing to do that, even if you convinced them it is life-or-death. People have a deeply held belief that they can measure portions with their eyeballs, and that they know what a good, morally upstanding portion size looks like!
Only a small percent of the people with high blood pressure actually benefit from salt reduction. In the median patient, reducing dietary salt intake does not improve health outcomes.
This is well known, though cue 5 people claiming to be RNs to respond claiming I'm murdering people by encouraging you to look up the actual risks of salt and high blood pressure and to ask the question, "Does it say salt is bad for everybody, or only for a minority of patients?"
Just because stress has been demonstrated to be harmful does not imply that your claims above were also true. Why argue with somebody pointing out that you made technical claims that are outside of what is actually known to be true? You claimed it was "the science," but it wasn't.
Right. If you still need a "souped-up graphical dumb terminal" then you still need a personal computer! All you're saying is, you can keep using the same PC for years, you don't need to upgrade a lot, or buy a stupid graphics card that doubles as a forced-air furnace.
The core parts have open replacements that people could host themselves, but few people even know about it. Managers believe there is lots of lock-in, even were it isn't true!
If they decided to be smarter about it, you're already claiming that are not as bad as they were.
The problem with MS before was that were being naughtier than is supposed to be allowed! So until that "allowed" part gets enforced, it is very bad. And then if it is enforced successfully, as in the case of MS, then everything is less-bad again.
It isn't a question of intent, it is a question of behavior!
I sure hope they're as bad as MS were in the past, that implies that in the future they'll get a smack-down and be less bad after that! If it turns out they're as bad as they are now without being as bad as MS was, it means they'll be allowed to get even worse!
What I find funny, as a developer, is the idea that "developers tend to believe their own 'creativity' is being stymied by [project managers]."
Every time you look at code and have a visceral NIH (Not Invented Here [Syndrome]) response, that is your own creativity crashing up against the author of the code's creativity.
When you see good clean code and don't have any NIH response, that implies that the author resisted the urge to be creative, or simply isn't a creative person.
Not every task actually benefits from creativity! Even if creativity is valuable to a programmer overall during the process, while actually writing the code perhaps it is harmful to the result! Most devs might never be happy with project management, including when it is working well and being effective.
Perhaps they'd do better to focus on claiming about any shouty bosses, instead of resisting project management?
Can you comprehend that that is a circular argument, and therefore stupid and idiotic? As long as you know what choice you're making, I don't care.
I don't think I've seen a single complaint that involved caring about what you think, for example. So perhaps we can at least agree that your sociopathic nonsense is off topic.
Clearly you left out information. My presumption is that you left out important information because it didn't tell the story you wanted.
If you check the link you'll find out, tuition in 1995 was not $1750/yr for a four year University. That's your claim! It is pretty silly too. Without calculating inflation, it would have been $3,682 when paid in 1995. Maybe you received financial assistance and didn't realize what the total cost was?
The chart says the average public university was $10,496 in 94-95, and $18,632 in 14-15, using 2014-15 dollars.
Community colleges were $6,281 in 94-95, and $9,586 in 14-15.
If you read the summary, you can just hold out your phone with the translate app open and it does work. You could even just buy a high quality microphone and speaker for the phone, like for videoconferencing.
This review doesn't tell you anything about being able to achieve the goals of your use case, it is only saying that the product "Pixel Buds" aren't really very good at it. But they're also not the important part for your use case!
I'm not going to click links, but I do have a question... is it just weasel words when he says it doesn't require a connection to your phone or wifi? I mean, is he saying it has its own phone, or that it is actually not networked at all? Not clear. Vitally important to categorize the claims you quoted, and yet, left unsaid. I just assume that means it has its own cell phone built in and is not an interesting product.
z0mg, we don't have Universal Translators yet?! Are you sure it isn't just some conspiracy?! Maybe the aliens don't want us to have it, did you consider that?! Maybe that is why it isn't center stage. Try it and it's probe time! lol
The average person would try it indoors and outdoors, and not be surprised that it doesn't work on a busy street. They would not even know to be surprised that it lacks magic, they would have expected that from the beginning!
Do we really care if it's a fundamental problem or a bug, as consumers? I care about what it does now, if I'm going to pay for it now.
IF you already bought it, you only care what it does now. If you're trying to decide on buying it now, or waiting for a future model, then yes it matters if it is a fundamental problem, or if it is a bug.
For example, personal jet packs have fundamental problems as a product. It is unlikely you'll see this as a product. Whereas self-driving cars still have bugs, but are a fundamentally sound idea and we should anticipate increased features and capabilities being offered in the short term.
Same with flying cars; there are fundamental problems with the product, namely the severity of any crash in an urban area. Those are big problems that society would have to decide on answers to before the product can really even be well-defined, much less debugged. But those could be resolved, at which point the actual building of the machines would be a relatively easy and straightforwards engineering process.
Here, it matters because the build quality is low so if you like the product concept then you can just wait to read in the news that a new one came out with higher build quality! (and maybe multiple mics for active noise canceling...)
I agree, the real question is if this works well indoors, in an office environment. Is it ready to be a basic business tool? After you're already using it in a quiet environment, then later generations might have the feature of working well out on the street too.
Just like, early cell phones dropped calls whenever you drove (they were too big to carry far!) under a bridge or past a tall building! And now people whine if they don't get three bars when surrounded by obstacles.
I drive a Tesla Model 3 so hopefully this doesn't apply to me.
That's right, if somebody that advanced wanted to personally target you for assassination, they'd just hack your car and the world would think you died from driving and watching goat pr0n at the same time!
A cruise missile is just about the worst thing you would have coming at ships. I mean, the "cruise" in cruise missile means it is a cross between a missile and an airplane! If you have a whole "swarm" of them, duh, that's bad, and the ships will sink.
This is why when the US moves all our ships suddenly out of the Persian Gulf, Iran starts accusing of us preparing for war! Because in a war against an enemy who has cruise missiles, any nearby ships would sink.
For America, this is a danger to sailors in a Navy; they have to be prepared for sacrifice in time of war. It is a solemn duty. And then the airforce will flatten whatever patch of land the cruise missiles are flying off of.
Countries like Iran that have fleets of small patrol craft with single anti-ship missiles mounted on them can sink any ship that passes by, sure. But what next? They cannot shoot down any airplane that flies over! So that is why those ships are so powerful; you can't really attack them without creating a big scene and getting Uncle Sam's blood pressure up!
No, but the book The Diamond Age covered all this stuff, we don't need a stupid bad video to point out the risks. If they wanted to do this right, they'd pay Neal Stephenson to do a film adaptation!
THat's what they tried to do! It is lame and slimy.
If you have a bug bounty, people who are finding security bugs are security researchers, if they can't talk about it how do they build their career?!
And when you give somebody permission to check your security for bugs, offering not to take them to court is actually a threat to take them to court, just phrased backwards, because you don't have any right to accuse them of crimes when you agreed for them to check your security.
He left $30k on the table over those lame, slimy, offered terms. Bug bounty is bug bounty! If anything he should sue them for calling him a hacker and claiming he's some kind of black hat!
The offer goes like this: Thanks for finding our bug, here is your money, thanks again, will you sign a document that says this is everything you found so far? There is no threats or demands. Nor is there even power to be making demands. Bug bounty is a service that helps the company!
They might be, especially if people start to realize that there in a company from France called Parrot making similar drones to DJI but a little cheaper.
Slashdot Mirror
Yor any other bottom feeders. These concentrate the toxins in the environment and are horribly bad for you.
This is the same moronic bullshit that uneducated fisherman think up. What part of the food chain concentrates toxins? Is it "bottom-feeders?" Is it known to science?! Is it a mystery where we can just make up any random answer and it might be true? No. No, no, no, no, and no.
Predators are the animals that concentrate toxins. Bottom feeders only concentrate toxins in very narrow conditions, for example in a bay with large amounts of water pollution. Predators concentrate all of the environmental toxins, including ones from bottom feeders!
So you have some idiot fisherman accusing carp of concentrating toxins, but carp eat mostly plants and insects and are very low on the food chain; they only concentrate a little bit of toxins, mostly because of their long lifespan. A trout, that eats mostly meat, is concentrating way more toxins than a carp!
This is why fish like Red Snapper, which are bottom feeders, have less toxins than Tuna; they're both carnivores, but tuna are higher on the food chain; more of their prey are also themselves predators, whereas most of the prey of a Snapper are small herbivores.
Most bottom feeders are omnivores, they are not very high on the food chain.
Think of all a people having fun... picture in your brain cruises, vacations, and large family gatherings. Imagine giving all of them up, and then picture your lifestyle without them. Contemplate that you may live an extra year or two, and then ask yourself if it is worth it.
Hint: It's not.
Think of all the people being using their brains... picture in your mind's eye insightful comments, inventions, conventions. Imagine giving all that up, imagine living without using your brain. Contemplate that you may get a very slight feeling of ignorant virtue, and then ask yourself if it is worth it.
Hint: The whole setup is just a false equivalence.
Weighing food is the big thing in what you said; most people would never be willing to do that, even if you convinced them it is life-or-death. People have a deeply held belief that they can measure portions with their eyeballs, and that they know what a good, morally upstanding portion size looks like!
Only a small percent of the people with high blood pressure actually benefit from salt reduction. In the median patient, reducing dietary salt intake does not improve health outcomes .
This is well known, though cue 5 people claiming to be RNs to respond claiming I'm murdering people by encouraging you to look up the actual risks of salt and high blood pressure and to ask the question, "Does it say salt is bad for everybody, or only for a minority of patients?"
Just because stress has been demonstrated to be harmful does not imply that your claims above were also true. Why argue with somebody pointing out that you made technical claims that are outside of what is actually known to be true? You claimed it was "the science," but it wasn't.
Right. If you still need a "souped-up graphical dumb terminal" then you still need a personal computer! All you're saying is, you can keep using the same PC for years, you don't need to upgrade a lot, or buy a stupid graphics card that doubles as a forced-air furnace.
The core parts have open replacements that people could host themselves, but few people even know about it. Managers believe there is lots of lock-in, even were it isn't true!
If they decided to be smarter about it, you're already claiming that are not as bad as they were.
The problem with MS before was that were being naughtier than is supposed to be allowed! So until that "allowed" part gets enforced, it is very bad. And then if it is enforced successfully, as in the case of MS, then everything is less-bad again.
It isn't a question of intent, it is a question of behavior!
I sure hope they're as bad as MS were in the past, that implies that in the future they'll get a smack-down and be less bad after that! If it turns out they're as bad as they are now without being as bad as MS was, it means they'll be allowed to get even worse!
What I find funny, as a developer, is the idea that "developers tend to believe their own 'creativity' is being stymied by [project managers]."
Every time you look at code and have a visceral NIH (Not Invented Here [Syndrome]) response, that is your own creativity crashing up against the author of the code's creativity.
When you see good clean code and don't have any NIH response, that implies that the author resisted the urge to be creative, or simply isn't a creative person.
Not every task actually benefits from creativity! Even if creativity is valuable to a programmer overall during the process, while actually writing the code perhaps it is harmful to the result! Most devs might never be happy with project management, including when it is working well and being effective.
Perhaps they'd do better to focus on claiming about any shouty bosses, instead of resisting project management?
Can you comprehend that that is a circular argument, and therefore stupid and idiotic? As long as you know what choice you're making, I don't care.
I don't think I've seen a single complaint that involved caring about what you think, for example. So perhaps we can at least agree that your sociopathic nonsense is off topic.
Clearly you left out information. My presumption is that you left out important information because it didn't tell the story you wanted.
If you check the link you'll find out, tuition in 1995 was not $1750/yr for a four year University. That's your claim! It is pretty silly too. Without calculating inflation, it would have been $3,682 when paid in 1995. Maybe you received financial assistance and didn't realize what the total cost was?
The chart says the average public university was $10,496 in 94-95, and $18,632 in 14-15, using 2014-15 dollars.
Community colleges were $6,281 in 94-95, and $9,586 in 14-15.
If you read the summary, you can just hold out your phone with the translate app open and it does work. You could even just buy a high quality microphone and speaker for the phone, like for videoconferencing.
This review doesn't tell you anything about being able to achieve the goals of your use case, it is only saying that the product "Pixel Buds" aren't really very good at it. But they're also not the important part for your use case!
I'm not going to click links, but I do have a question... is it just weasel words when he says it doesn't require a connection to your phone or wifi? I mean, is he saying it has its own phone, or that it is actually not networked at all? Not clear. Vitally important to categorize the claims you quoted, and yet, left unsaid. I just assume that means it has its own cell phone built in and is not an interesting product.
z0mg, we don't have Universal Translators yet?! Are you sure it isn't just some conspiracy?! Maybe the aliens don't want us to have it, did you consider that?! Maybe that is why it isn't center stage. Try it and it's probe time! lol
The average person would try it indoors and outdoors, and not be surprised that it doesn't work on a busy street. They would not even know to be surprised that it lacks magic, they would have expected that from the beginning!
It wouldn't be called "bluetooth" if it was something you had to get from Apple!
LOL durrrr
Also, Apple doesn't do those types of OEM deals.
Do we really care if it's a fundamental problem or a bug, as consumers? I care about what it does now, if I'm going to pay for it now.
IF you already bought it, you only care what it does now. If you're trying to decide on buying it now, or waiting for a future model, then yes it matters if it is a fundamental problem, or if it is a bug.
For example, personal jet packs have fundamental problems as a product. It is unlikely you'll see this as a product. Whereas self-driving cars still have bugs, but are a fundamentally sound idea and we should anticipate increased features and capabilities being offered in the short term.
Same with flying cars; there are fundamental problems with the product, namely the severity of any crash in an urban area. Those are big problems that society would have to decide on answers to before the product can really even be well-defined, much less debugged. But those could be resolved, at which point the actual building of the machines would be a relatively easy and straightforwards engineering process.
Here, it matters because the build quality is low so if you like the product concept then you can just wait to read in the news that a new one came out with higher build quality! (and maybe multiple mics for active noise canceling...)
I agree, the real question is if this works well indoors, in an office environment. Is it ready to be a basic business tool? After you're already using it in a quiet environment, then later generations might have the feature of working well out on the street too.
Just like, early cell phones dropped calls whenever you drove (they were too big to carry far!) under a bridge or past a tall building! And now people whine if they don't get three bars when surrounded by obstacles.
Yeah, the gaps in chicken wire are way less than a nanoparsec, so it is definitely good for nanoscale defense!
I drive a Tesla Model 3 so hopefully this doesn't apply to me.
That's right, if somebody that advanced wanted to personally target you for assassination, they'd just hack your car and the world would think you died from driving and watching goat pr0n at the same time!
A cruise missile is just about the worst thing you would have coming at ships. I mean, the "cruise" in cruise missile means it is a cross between a missile and an airplane! If you have a whole "swarm" of them, duh, that's bad, and the ships will sink.
This is why when the US moves all our ships suddenly out of the Persian Gulf, Iran starts accusing of us preparing for war! Because in a war against an enemy who has cruise missiles, any nearby ships would sink.
For America, this is a danger to sailors in a Navy; they have to be prepared for sacrifice in time of war. It is a solemn duty. And then the airforce will flatten whatever patch of land the cruise missiles are flying off of.
Countries like Iran that have fleets of small patrol craft with single anti-ship missiles mounted on them can sink any ship that passes by, sure. But what next? They cannot shoot down any airplane that flies over! So that is why those ships are so powerful; you can't really attack them without creating a big scene and getting Uncle Sam's blood pressure up!
Pew pew pew pew pew what could go wrong?
No, but the book The Diamond Age covered all this stuff, we don't need a stupid bad video to point out the risks. If they wanted to do this right, they'd pay Neal Stephenson to do a film adaptation!
THat's what they tried to do! It is lame and slimy.
If you have a bug bounty, people who are finding security bugs are security researchers, if they can't talk about it how do they build their career?!
And when you give somebody permission to check your security for bugs, offering not to take them to court is actually a threat to take them to court, just phrased backwards, because you don't have any right to accuse them of crimes when you agreed for them to check your security.
He left $30k on the table over those lame, slimy, offered terms. Bug bounty is bug bounty! If anything he should sue them for calling him a hacker and claiming he's some kind of black hat!
The offer goes like this: Thanks for finding our bug, here is your money, thanks again, will you sign a document that says this is everything you found so far? There is no threats or demands. Nor is there even power to be making demands. Bug bounty is a service that helps the company!
They might be, especially if people start to realize that there in a company from France called Parrot making similar drones to DJI but a little cheaper.