Alright. I think I understand now. I also figured I'd spend a minute and check with Google as my memory is sometimes a bit foggy but it turns out that I'm still remembering the suicide lane properly. I'm also recollecting the troubles properly. It does seem that there's a raised awareness about them but they still exist.
I figured, what the hell, and even went and got you a picture of one - if for nothing else than to make it a bit more clear. Link: https://northfieldnomo.files.w...
That's a mild one. You see 'em in areas that have been built up and had room to expand or plan ahead. Sometimes, yikes, you see them with a total of five lanes! That's just crazy talk and every bit as dangerous as you might imagine. They're usually in urban areas, typically where there are a lot of stores, and that means a lot of distracted driving.
I don't usually like to say things in terms of absolutes so I'll couch this one too. I can't, off the top of my head, think of any situation where the suicide lane is the optimal solution. In any area and traffic level that I can think of where it would be borderline acceptable wouldn't have traffic enough to justify its use. I really can't think of one place where it is the optimal solution and I'm having to work hard to fabricate a situation where it's even borderline acceptable.
Ah well, I'm glad that you do *not* have to deal with a traffic design like the one in the picture. I do not know you personally but it'd still be unfortunate for you to have to risk it. It is one of the more dangerous traffic patterns out there and I was actually a bit worried/disheartened that the engineers had proposed it. I'd not even wish that sort of risk on even the resident trolls.;-)
Virginia should try to put the "fog line" (that's the white outside edge marking line's semi-official name) where possible. You can, with that, do just fine in inclement weather and in poor-visibility conditions. If they're painted (there are multiple striping methods) they are usually reflective. This is especially handy if you have a oncoming traffic that did not dim their lights. Simple do not look at the lights directly and you can usually make out the fog line well enough to navigate safely.
They can get away without a center line marker, though it might confuse people so they should probably do a press-release, and just paint (or epoxy, or plastic) the fog line by itself. They might even want to do multiple press-releases, just to be sure that they're getting the message out. I suspect it'd work just fine and it could be modeled well enough. The center line should be there but, you know, if they've got no choice about adding it.
And yes, yes it is expensive. It's thick. The paint is quite pricey (as in really expensive) and I haven't bothered to look it up but the FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) will probably have that information buried in their site somewhere. They're actually pretty good about keeping, making, and giving public access to records, reports, and even proposals if you know where to look. Their site's not the best for search results so usually using Google is best. At any rate, depending on the method, I'd expect anywhere between $0.05 and $0.10 per linear foot. Actually, I'll look it up. I'm not doing anything better and I don't get a thread about traffic/highways all that often. 'Snot all that often that I get to lend a hand. I'll do some work, for a change.
They've got the price at $0.035 to $0.07 per linear foot. My numbers aren't that bad, I guess. They're actually probably a bit higher - I retired in 2008 but was 'done' around ¾ the way through 2007. Alas, I spent more time on the road or in my office for the five years prior. (I kind of miss it.) At any rate, that link should tell you everything you want to know about the lines you see on the roads in the US.
I did not read the study. I didn't even really fully read the abstract. I've actually read that before. I think the most important part to take from that is that for every $1 spent striping the roads, they expect to result in a benefit of $60. If you want to understand that (or anyone) then the study is not long, it's free, and it's just that one page unless you want to get all of the citations. I'd be surprised if you couldn't get access to most of the works cited via Google or for low/no cost at your local public university.
At any rate, you mentioned artificial light... They've actual done some research into ways to make the lines more visible. I had nothing to do with this project, at all, but I do remember reading something about it. This was back in 2005. I am pretty sure I read about it at least once before that date. It was probably in Public Roads which is an inexpensive print (now online) publication that's all about roads. It's just six issues per year and is pretty much mandatory reading, It's not that expensive and I think the online version is free but I don't recall them having a handy way to download it and browse it offline. Someone who writes a lot like me may actually have published some content in said magazine. Oh, the link:
Ah well... If you're in the industry and are looking for a way to get your name out there then it's not too hard to get your stuff printed in there. The information's on the site or in the print version. I no longer get the print version, I haven't in years. When I cleaned out my office and a back room, one of the things I made it a point to keep was my many books, trade magazines, and various non-business owned documents.
Yeah, we called those "suicide lanes" where you've got traffic going in both directions and a central turning lane. We're not always in control of what they do but we always advised against it. It's even more stupid when they've got double lanes going in both directions with a single central turning lane. Someone, not myself, was recommending them a bit in the mid-to-late-90s and early-00s but many of them have been removed. Usually they're removed by making the lanes a bit bigger and increasing the breakdown lane's width.
I'm kind of surprised you have a new one. I'm assuming it is new because you said "revised." If it is as you describe, it's dangerous because it's needless and people don't know how to drive. If it's a new feature, expect some more accidents. If it's the five lane configuration, expect some of those accidents to be serious but that's probably not a concern for you, you said three lanes.
They're one of the more accident prone configurations and I'm not sure why people would still be using them. Well, no... I know *why* certain "traffic engineers" would be still recommending them - I'm just not sure why they're listened to or gainfully employed. For the sake of politeness, I'll try to not badmouth the industry but I'm not the least bit impressed with the quality of work in some cases.
So, yeah, avoid the suicide lane. If possible, to to the next light and reverse course there - it's actually safer at the light-controlled intersections. Any of those that were put in place should be on their way out by now. That they're just putting them in, in a redesign, is telling but I've seen a few others that were either done recently or resurfaced recently so you're not alone. It's a straight up stupid idea to use them. In theory, they're great. In reality, people can't drive worth a fuck.
Depending on your jurisdiction, those lines may be advisories and not law. They are often placed solely at the discretion of the line painter on the truck who is subject to making errors. In very few instances are lines painted with any sort of precision. If you read the laws carefully, you may find that they're only there as advice. That has a few meanings, it also means that you can be cited for passing in a marked passing zone if the observing officer believes it to be dangerous - I believe a common choice of verbiage is "unsafe pass" and a longer name on the actual law in the books. Driving to endanger is also a fun one that can be pulled out and used if they don't like the way you passed or you legitimately passed in an unsafe manner.
That said, I have been out of the industry for 8 years. I'd not say that I'm current with the latest research. I would say that I'm still very familiar. I would also say that I've kept my finger on the pulse. It's hard not to.
The first thing to say, and I'll try to keep this short, is that it'd be silly to compare much of the driving in the other countries to what we experience in the US. The continental European driving will be similar. The UK is a bit different - drive across by means of a tunnel and ferry. This will be different than the driving in the US, Japan, continental Asia, Africa, etc... These variations are not strictly along country borders but different geographical and cultural areas also have different driving styles, needs, and laws. Some individual States in the US have markedly different driving styles within their own borders.
The second thing I'll say is that I'd need some SERIOUS consideration before I'd recommend this step in any locale. I would want to see a whole lot of proof before I recommended anyone removing center line markings, at least not not systematically. There are a couple of areas where I can see not adding them if they do not already exist. (And I'd be unlikely to have been consulted on such a route.) If you want to go for maximum safety, should space and budget allow, then a few meridian design options are known to be the safest division.
If the width of the entire paved surface is smaller than two minimal sized lanes, I'd suggest not painting a center line if it does not already exist. However, center-lane *and* outer-lane markings are ideal, where applicable and in the US. I'd have to dredge up some very old paperwork (and it's probably on paper) to offer an opinion about that aspect specifically for the UK. But, I'd need to see a whole lot of research and evidence before I recommended that this be done - and the burden of proof increases greatly in order to recommend this as a unilateral change.
Oh, and before anyone says anything about them driving on the wrong side of the road in the UK. It's worth noting that the UK drives on the left, traffic passing on the right, because doing so makes it easier to kill you. Yes, the UK drives on the left so they can kill you better. (Swords were wielded in the right hand with scabbard on the left.) It's also worth noting that some early automobiles, designed and built in the US, had right-hand drive configurations.
A number of folks claim that the US (as well as some other countries that were once colonies) drive on the right as a political statement against the United Kingdom. I don't know that anyone has provided decent evidence for that claim. I have heard a number of tales about it, some of them included patriotic people and damned near heroic deeds. If I recall correctly, most attribute driving on the right (in the US, at least) not to politics with the UK but because of the teamsters.
While I'm here, the pedal configuration is the same in the UK and something like 1/3 of automobiles are manufactured for right-hand drive. The shifting lever is (generally) always facing the center. Over the years, we've had lots of configurations for vehicle controls with varied knobs, sliders, pedals, and twisty things. There have been designs where the driver sits in th
That'd be one of the things I tried to bring to folks attention about ten years ago. I also suggested unions but really felt the emphasis should be on a trade association - perhaps similar to the various engineering disciplines. I suggested that folks look into unions, not necessarily formal unions but a communication forum designated to trade health would have been a good start (I think).
Something like certification (yes, I know) but one handed down by the organization and yes, with some protectionism in mind. I know, it's great to be independent but a whole lot of people speaking as one can have a much greater effect than many speaking as individuals. Think of the saved effort, greater efficiency, and more concentrated effect it *could* have.
I suspect it's too late for that now. I guess you could do it now and hope it bears fruit later. There's no reason to not get together and get things going. Get big, get employer buy-in, and work to establish credibility. There are lots of things to try, or to have tried, and it's true that some ideas are better than others but you can see how far they're all getting with nobody doing anything. The few that are doing anything are mostly duplicating work.
Sometimes you have to stop worrying about your differences and start to pay attention to the things you have in common. People have been talking for years. People have even used the "raising awareness" line on it.
"I'm helping, I'm raising awareness." "I'm doing my part, I'm opening the dialogue." "It's important that people know about this."
Add that to, sometimes the best way to take care of yourself is actually to help other people. What was that phrase from back in Latin? Erf... Ah, manus manum lavat. I mentioned in a post earlier, the missing ingredient is solidarity. No software or laws can fix that.
I do program a little bit but I am not a programmer - even though I have done a lot of programming in the past. While I was programming I was not really a very good programmer. Oh, it worked. Eventually. It even did much of what I wanted, in some fashion. I had someone with me at the start, he was a CS grad who did more "ops" than "dev." I just kind of asked him if he wanted to help so he doesn't really count for this metric. The first person I hired, after the business was running, was a programmer.
I programmed in C but I did some Perl, some BASIC, even some QBASIC at one point. Oh, I can bang out bad code in a handful of languages even today. I am not a programmer. I do not even have a passing familiarity with Java though, funny enough, I've been talking about learning it lately because I have a project at hand and it's more difficult than I thought it would be. I turns out, there are no handy dandy libraries for what I want to do in C. However, Java has a library for everything. Java has a library to optimize the efficiency of a sock gnome, complete with web interaction and remote hosting. And yes, you can bundle it into a.jar and have it work across all the major platforms...
At any rate, I mention that to basically tell you that I have no idea what you're talking about. So, I went to the all-knowing Google. The whole phrase as a search query was not refined enough. I took out the "Java" and it returned one result. That result might mean something - as it appeared to be sort of topical. It was a bug, on RedHat's bug-tracker about JBoss using too much memory.
I read it and I am still not entirely sure what is going on. It looks like they're setting some sort of Java setting via the terminal. At first blush, it looks like they're setting Java to use more than 128 GB. So, unless I'm missing something then I am lost. 'Cause I'm not exactly sure why you'd need to set Java to use that much RAM. I'm usually pretty imaginative but I can't even think of why someone'd want to do that on a workstation or a server. Being exactly the opposite of an expert, I'm pretty sure that if you're using 128 GB of RAM with your Java app then you're either doing something brilliant or you're doing something horribly wrong.
I guess I could benchmark it and use a burn-in test to get the RAM to peg out at full. I don't think I've done a benchmark or burn-in for a lot of years. I just don't bother any more. Hmm... I need a good forum to show them off. What's the point of doing all that if you can't show off the numbers?;-)
But, really, I'm not really sure why anyone would want to run your command. Someone probably has a good reason. Not me.:/
"Most" people "totally freak out" when you prove that to them?
Hmm... I'll accept some extrapolation and we can work with that. But what do you mean by "totally freak out?" I also suspect there's some selection bias? I'm assuming (having not checked) that the vast majority of people that I know are actually aware of this or would be able to reason it out pretty quickly and just accept the fact.
Out of curiosity, what sort of numbers do you have for folks you've shared that tidbit of information with and what area of the globe is that?
I'm going to hope two things... One, I'm going to hope that there's a whole heap of selection bias. Two, I'm going to hope we've got *very* different definitions for "totally freak out." It's radiation, you're being exposed to radiation all the time - it's not just in you but all around you. We've got a big ol' giant ball of radiation coming up right now. We're literally being bombarded with radiation all the time.
But, damn it, that's the good healthy, natural, radiation!;-)
Seriously, "most" people are "totally freaked out" when they learn this? Many years ago, my daughter came home from elementary school and, after a while, she broke down in tears. The teacher had told her that someday the Sun was going to go out and that all of the life on Earth would cease to exist. Her younger brother was listening in and he joined her in the tear shedding. I still have the chance to remind them of that. That's what I'd call "totally freaked out."
Ah, thanks. I was reading the thread and I'd wondered where I'd heard "LENR" before. Now I remember. It's what they used for a term when everyone ignored them after they'd used the phrase 'cold fusion.' I do not know a whole hell of a lot so I am incapable of offering a qualified opinion on the validity of cold fusion. Everything I do know, which is not a whole lot, says that it doesn't seem likely.
What I do know is that there are people who know much more than I, some of them with great reputations and great accomplishments in that specific field, who have indicated that it is extremely unlikely. Why the careful verbiage used by me? I do not know enough to come out and say that it's complete bunk. So, thank you for the reminder and I think I'll continue to trust the experts who indicate that generating energy via cold fusion is unlikely.
I seem to recall that one of them had a video, quite some time ago, that laid out the reasons (in simple enough terms that even a KGIII could get it) why the premise is itself fundamentally flawed. I can't find the video now. It might even pre-date YouTube, yikes! I'm sure that tech has moved forward. I'm not sure that reality has fundamentally changed. I do believe they equivocated cold fusion with either anti-gravity or perpetual motion and had some basic laws of thermodynamics that made it unlikely, if not impossible. (I want to say impossible but I am not an expert and not recollecting the exact words used.)
Alas, I can not find the video... That is unfortunate because the guy was going right to town in it and having a good time tearing it up. It was a segment, with a panel of people (maybe?), and akin to the TED talks. In my efforts to find this video, I did come across something else. Amusingly enough, it seems to indicate my memory is at least partially correct. More amusingly, Google redirected me to Slashdot. So, here is said link:
Err... I can't believe you're asking for citations? Really? I can understand some healthy skepticism but there are actually SCIENTIFIC PAPERS published on this. But, let me help you out... I searched first for "china scientific fraud" and found that there were papers on this subject but I clicked on the first, non-scientific, paper:
Just last month, BioMed Central, an open-access publisher based in Britain, retracted 43 papers, most of them from Chinese researchers, after discovering that reviewers who had supposedly signed off on the studies were made up by agencies hired by the original authors.
I liked their phrase better, so I searched for "china scientific credibility" and figured that I'd find you some more information though, to be honest, I've no idea why you want it as it's obvious you're not actually a scientist or following science with any great enthusiasm...
Here's one about the "credibility paradox" that China faces. Zhang is Chinese, by the way.
It's so prolific that China had to BAN dishonesty in scientific research... Ban it, by law... They just banned it recently, as in very recently. Who knows if it has actually had any real-world results? I'm thinking that "probably not" is a good answer. That should not be misread to make it seem as if I'm claiming this research is fraudulent. See below as to why I'm a bit skeptical about it having any major, real-world, long-term, impact. The link to cite that for you too:
It baffles me that you have no idea and would ask for citations. They've plagiarized a ton of stuff, fabricated stuff, and made stuff up out of whole cloth and, by most accounts, that's actually due to governmental pressures. Some are inclined to believe that it is cultural. Being a bit of a pragmatist, I don't see why it can't be both. However, that's not my area so I probably am not qualified to speculate as to the reasoning.
At any rate, WTF are you going to actually *do* with a citation? This is Slashdot, not Wikipedia, and you're not a scientist - I know because this is endemic across the entire board of studies, you'd know about it if you were a scientist or even just an enthusiast. Either way, there's a whole shit-ton more articles (and actual published research) on China's reputation in all things science.
Hmm... I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that the US doesn't have a manned spaceflight program - they just don't use their own rockets or launch facilities for that program and knowingly put themselves into that position. However they (we) have a manned spaceflight program. They/we just don't launch any manned spaceflight vehicles. NASA is still putting people in space, they're just paying someone else to do the lifting part of it.
I have 20 tabs open in Opera, that's based on Chromium. Currently, it indicates that I'm running 6.7 GB. I think I've seen it peak at around 14 GB as I recall - with normal usage. It can eat a bit more when compiling or something similar but that doesn't even really eat a whole lot. Then again, I really don't do as much with a computer as I used to. So much of my time is just as a passive consumer. I'm working to change that - thus the excuse to buy this laptop. It's pretty damned sexy.
I got to skip an OS and software but I tweaked the rest and spent a silly amount of money but it's worth it, in my opinion. Then again, I probably wouldn't have bought it if my opinion was not that it was worth it. So, there's that. However, have a look if you want. I gotta tell you... I've been *very* pleased with my purchase. It runs Lubuntu just fine and I've not even had to install the proprietary drivers - even the camera works. Hell, I don't actually use the camera for anything but I tested it and it's surprisingly good. It's not easy to find a good, full size, laptop. I splurged and got a couple of external drives from them - including the optical drive. I could have picked those up anywhere and at a better price but, what the hell.
At any rate, it's a fantastic piece of equipment but far more power than I use. Even as I sort of move back to the point where I'm less of a consumer, it's still more power than I need. Even if it would be slow, I could probably manage just fine on 4 GB of RAM and 8 would be enough. As I mentioned above, there's some difference when I go to from 16 to 32 as I do, sometimes, use more RAM than that. But, normally that's not the case and I don't believe I've done so on this laptop yet. I've had it for more than a month and I really don't think I've gone above 14 GB or so. So, I've put 64 in a few boxes and this laptop has 64 but I'm still trying to figure out what someone would do, meant to be done on a workstation - which is kind of a specific category, that would take 256 GB of RAM.
To be fair, I thought it was 128 GB at first. That doesn't change the nature of the beast. Video rendering gets farmed out or done on an in-house server. Video editing, maybe? I thought that was being pushed to a server and run by remote now? Even compiling is now done on a server and not on the workstation. They've got dedicated "build boxes." Maybe CAD? What CAD software has been compiled to run on this architecture?
I, too, am an automobile aficionado. I not only race a little bit (we've an pro-am rally circuit in my area with some nice routes) but I drove as a profession, worked in the industry, and now own what can best be called a "stable of cars." (I've actually posted pics of some of the more interesting ones. They are probably not what you'd guess.) I am not home but the car I have with me is a rather up-scale, "sport" edition, rather beefy 6 series BMW. I've even gone so far as to spend a couple of weeks in Germany, taking classes and then hiring a coach and doing laps in rented exotics at Nuburgring. I don't just love driving, I love the automobile. I love the engine, I love the noise, I love every bit about driving and that includes driving in traffic. I own a restored and modified 1982 Volvo 245 specifically because it's RWD and a whole bowl of fun in the snow. Yes, a 245. I also have a 911 ('78 in Targa trim) but that's mentioned to give you a bit of perspective as to where I'm coming from.
So, I think I'm entitled to opine. You are not obligated to agree or even listen.
But, ludicrous mode... Yes, I'm buying a Tesla just for that. The missus can drive it most of the time. I'm buying it for that and for that alone. I've driven one, before that mode was enabled, and it's actually similar to driving a 7-series. It's big but once you get the hang of it, it feels lighter on its feet than it is - the center of gravity is really low. The torque is instant. The ability to throw in some understeer is fantastic - once you realize that it's 2.25 tons.
I'm not just an automobile aficionado. I'm a driving enthusiast. How can I not buy a Tesla? My love is big enough for both an ICE and an EV. My thrill, some 45+ years after I first drove a car, is still the same when I get in it - even if it's to just go to a store. I go out of my way to drive - to this day. I don't even dislike driving in traffic. I have yet to drive one vehicle (and I've driven a whole lot of 'em) that I can't find a redeeming quality for - and I've driven a Lada. If it has wheels, I've driven something like it - where legal. Some of the things I've driven don't even have wheels. Some have as few as a single wheel but that was really riding. I'm happy when I'm driving a golf-cart or an electric wheelchair. I've driven things with a whole slew of wheels - as many as 22 wheels to be exact and not counting spares.
How can I not buy a Tesla? Ownership doesn't preclude my ownership and enjoyment of other things. No, my heart's big enough for all of 'em and it really will be vibrating with joy when I have one of my own to play with. The one I drove belonged to a friend, a trusting friend who told me to drive it like I stole it, but I didn't really get the chance to find all its quirks and fully understand the handling characteristics or find all the limits. I will put myself on the list to buy one once I'm back home and able to take delivery of one.
It doesn't work perfectly (or even work, really) for all of my driving needs. Not even close. My home is in Maine and 24 miles from the nearest village and over 60 miles from a real town. It's full of hills and bad weather that means I need something with more energy storage capacity than a Tesla. However, it fills a niche and will be appreciated - and used to its limits because automobiles are meant to be driven.
Hmm... Lots of the roads, specifically the large interstate highways, were built after the New Deal had ended. They were built under the auspices of Present Eisenhower. He'd seen the military and civilian value in the autobahn and wanted to emulate its successes. (Note: The autobahn was not completed and was smaller then than it is now.)
I believe the story goes a bit like this:
Eisenhower saw a photograph of some Panzers going balls out in a line down the freakin' highway. He looked to his Aide De Camp and said, in his bestest and most Generalist voice, "Shit niggah! We gotta get some of that shizat up in this bitch. Dat be some phat shit dawg. Ya hear me?" His aide said, "Fuck ya, y'all gonna get busy up in there with their cars and shit but we made that shit fo tanks. For tanks! Tanks, bitch-ass-mother-fuckers made for tanks and aint no fuck gonna know that shit. I fucking hear ya, Big D Dizzle-dawg-hower, you feel me?"
And so, in the history books it is written. The laws were passed, the research done, the money spent, and the highways made big enough for tanks but mostly used by cars and trucks.
(General Dwight Eisenhower was also known as "The Big G" but when he became president he usually went for "Super P" and, while it's only a rumor, it's generally believed that the P was for Pimp.)
And, before anyone asks/accuses, I'm actually part black (mostly Amerindian, if you're curious) and currently have three people sharing this house with me who are also black. No Ebonics were harmed in the making of this post. Also, the reasoning for why I have three people sharing the house is long and complicated but it has been fun to have all these extra people around.
Oh the things I could say... It's tempting but I'm trying to avoid novellas today. (I'm saving up.) Man, this would be a fun one to write. Ah well...
No, people don't know how to drive. In some areas, it's better than others. In all areas, the average driver is an inattentive idiot who's fortunate that the safety devices work as advertised and graced by pure, dumb, luck. People point to the number of deaths on the road and say it is too high. I say it's off my a couple of orders of magnitude from where it should rightfully be.
Some comedian speculated that they should swap the driver's side, steering wheel (yes, that actually has to be specified now), airbag for a big, sharp, steel spike. Sometimes, I'm inclined to agree.
No, most drivers know how to point and some aren't even good at that. They sure as hell don't know how to drive, but you know that.;-) I point them out, when they're being "special," and I refer to them as the, "Mysteriously Not-Yet-Extinct North American Non-Driving Fuck with a License." I then make comments where I speculate that the reasons they're not extinct include mating habits and preservation activists who continually work to decrease their likelihood of death with engineering instead of education. Sometimes, I go so far as to agree that that's probably the best method as attempting to teach them seems like an exercise in futility.
Sorry folks but you're not in a race. Picture a *regular* glass of water that's full to the point where it's rounded over. Now picture it sitting on your dashboard. That is how you drive in snow. Lower the level a half inch for poor conditions but not snow. Low it a full inch for when the conditions are optimal. Adjust the level of water to suit the conditions. Accidents are almost always caused by driving too fast for the conditions. If you're fortunate enough to get off-road or onto a track, dump the glass out and throw it away, you don't want glass in the passenger compartment. And yes, yes there are some exceptions.
Tempting but no... You already know that the average person can't drive worth a damn and isn't interested in learning. No need to preach to the choir and most everyone else thinks they're a professional and a race car driver.
I really don't know where to thread this but your comment is good enough.
I too don't know if the hyperloop is the answer. What I do know is that it's not going to be exclusionary. It's not like they're just gonna say, "Well, we built this one. Ground the airplanes, boys. The transportation issue is settled!"
We'll still have planes, trains, and automobiles for the foreseeable future. Having options or even just exploring new things is not a bad thing. It's not like we don't have a history littered with bad ideas. What's one more? It's not like this is going to be done to the exclusion of other choices. It's not like this is some mandatory thing that we're gonna be forced to ride in.
And no, I have no vested interest in this project's success or failure.
Point of order: Trains have been attacked a hell of a lot in the US. Many more times than just once. Depending on your view, you might even attribute some of those attacks to "terrorism." (History goes back before your date of birth.) If you want to see what that turned into (when not trying to derail them and cause loss of life) then Google for Sherman's Neckties.
However, attacking a "regular passenger train" has a fine history in this country. They've attacked passenger trains, with the loss of regular passenger lives, for everything from political motivations to robbery. In the former case, the attacks were getting to be so frequent that one fort or another actually had a decoy train - which was promptly attacked by the natives. I think that would have been Fort Philip Kearny, if you want to look it up. I'm not sure how it's spelled or anything and I'm kind of lazy this morning so you get to do it on your own.
I had a few bucks burning a hole in my pocket and I'd seen an early model Tesla. Lots of people were starting to mention them in the comments at various sites. I took a look to see who was doing what and what financial information could be had. I bought 2000 shares in Tesla when they were just a bit over $24 each. I still have them. No, I hope they're not in finances or investing.
I'm not white so clue me in on what I missed. What privilege did the white people get? As near as I can tell, not a whole fuck of a lot if any. By grace of heritage, I was entitled to funds to help my business and scholarships as well as privileged entrance into educational facilities - simply because I was not white.
And no, for the record, I never disclose my race on any such applications. Why? Those are telling me that I need your help and that I'm unable to do so because of my genetic makeup. What privilege does a white person, in the same situation as a person who isn't, get?
Or, alternatively, don't let code access your system that you don't want. In other words, keep it locked down. How did the malicious DLL get into that folder, specifically, and was able to be called? And, if they can do that, why not just compromise the system in a hundred other ways instead of some half-assed way that might not work by using a DLL? They've already got access rights to put the DLL there. If they can do that then why do this? Just avoid it, as a programmer, on general principle but it's hardly a bug - it's working as designed.
Heh, it's not a bug! It's a feature. Seriously though, think about it for a minute. To put the DLL there in the first place they had to have access. How'd they get that access? Yeah, if they could do that then why put a DLL there that may very well not actually do anything - ever? There is, literally, no reason to make it more difficult with less chance of success. They've already owned the box just to put the DLL there.
Currently, it is Mac only but it looks like there are a few alternatives. There's Popcorn-Time and TorrentStreaming that I've come across for Linux but I've only bothered trying one of them. I have also checked out Tribler (thanks to them letting me know about this type of thing) and that appears to be not much different than a torrent client that does prioritizing so that you can watch it while it downloads.
One is a medical doctor and the other has yet to get his doctorate and is currently in negotiations to buy and run a bar/hotel in Peru. I've mentioned both numerous times. Both will use tech but neither is tech oriented.
You jest but I'd not actually put it past them to try to propose/mandate an alternative to the traditional protocols on some form of locked-down, access controlled, proprietary network that disallowed any unapproved content or actions. Sadly, there's a number of people who not only might support that but might not notice the difference. It could easily be couched in the sentiment that it's to save the children or to thwart terrorism.
No, I don't mean a firewall like China has. I mean a complete replacement with protocols that disallow all but approved actions. If you couple it with limited hardware then it's even easier for them to do - never mind what laws they make to prohibit doing it on your own. I seriously wouldn't put it past them making such a proposal with a straight face. I'd be surprised if it didn't happen eventually. I'd not be at all surprised to find that it'd have supporters who were not in the industry but sure would be happy if they could thwart terrorists, save the children, and reduce piracy!
Yup, loads of Linux software's distributed as torrents. In fact, almost every one that I see gets downloaded and I try to add all the new versions that are announced early on. I keep 'em seeding for years sometimes. I've got the space and bandwidth, why not help out? (And yes, that is a whole lot of torrents, space, and bandwidth.)
There are plenty of legitimate uses for torrents. 'Snot just for pirating.
I know this sounds like crazy talk and the delusions of an old and feeble minded but... Err... My ISP still has Usenet. It's even still active. I've never noticed anything disappearing from it. However, I don't use it to download stuff so it's *very* unlikely that I'd have noticed anything going by-by. The surprising thing is that it's still pretty active. I do have some "warez" groups loaded and in sync but I never see anything I'm interested in. There's not a whole lot for me to pirate via Usenet when pretty much everything I do use is either free already or I don't mind supporting the company, sometimes I *want* to support the company.
Slashdot Mirror
Alright. I think I understand now. I also figured I'd spend a minute and check with Google as my memory is sometimes a bit foggy but it turns out that I'm still remembering the suicide lane properly. I'm also recollecting the troubles properly. It does seem that there's a raised awareness about them but they still exist.
I figured, what the hell, and even went and got you a picture of one - if for nothing else than to make it a bit more clear. Link:
https://northfieldnomo.files.w...
That's a mild one. You see 'em in areas that have been built up and had room to expand or plan ahead. Sometimes, yikes, you see them with a total of five lanes! That's just crazy talk and every bit as dangerous as you might imagine. They're usually in urban areas, typically where there are a lot of stores, and that means a lot of distracted driving.
I don't usually like to say things in terms of absolutes so I'll couch this one too. I can't, off the top of my head, think of any situation where the suicide lane is the optimal solution. In any area and traffic level that I can think of where it would be borderline acceptable wouldn't have traffic enough to justify its use. I really can't think of one place where it is the optimal solution and I'm having to work hard to fabricate a situation where it's even borderline acceptable.
Ah well, I'm glad that you do *not* have to deal with a traffic design like the one in the picture. I do not know you personally but it'd still be unfortunate for you to have to risk it. It is one of the more dangerous traffic patterns out there and I was actually a bit worried/disheartened that the engineers had proposed it. I'd not even wish that sort of risk on even the resident trolls. ;-)
Virginia should try to put the "fog line" (that's the white outside edge marking line's semi-official name) where possible. You can, with that, do just fine in inclement weather and in poor-visibility conditions. If they're painted (there are multiple striping methods) they are usually reflective. This is especially handy if you have a oncoming traffic that did not dim their lights. Simple do not look at the lights directly and you can usually make out the fog line well enough to navigate safely.
They can get away without a center line marker, though it might confuse people so they should probably do a press-release, and just paint (or epoxy, or plastic) the fog line by itself. They might even want to do multiple press-releases, just to be sure that they're getting the message out. I suspect it'd work just fine and it could be modeled well enough. The center line should be there but, you know, if they've got no choice about adding it.
And yes, yes it is expensive. It's thick. The paint is quite pricey (as in really expensive) and I haven't bothered to look it up but the FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) will probably have that information buried in their site somewhere. They're actually pretty good about keeping, making, and giving public access to records, reports, and even proposals if you know where to look. Their site's not the best for search results so usually using Google is best. At any rate, depending on the method, I'd expect anywhere between $0.05 and $0.10 per linear foot. Actually, I'll look it up. I'm not doing anything better and I don't get a thread about traffic/highways all that often. 'Snot all that often that I get to lend a hand. I'll do some work, for a change.
Hmm... This is a bit old! It's from 1993.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publi...
They've got the price at $0.035 to $0.07 per linear foot. My numbers aren't that bad, I guess. They're actually probably a bit higher - I retired in 2008 but was 'done' around ¾ the way through 2007. Alas, I spent more time on the road or in my office for the five years prior. (I kind of miss it.) At any rate, that link should tell you everything you want to know about the lines you see on the roads in the US.
I did not read the study. I didn't even really fully read the abstract. I've actually read that before. I think the most important part to take from that is that for every $1 spent striping the roads, they expect to result in a benefit of $60. If you want to understand that (or anyone) then the study is not long, it's free, and it's just that one page unless you want to get all of the citations. I'd be surprised if you couldn't get access to most of the works cited via Google or for low/no cost at your local public university.
At any rate, you mentioned artificial light... They've actual done some research into ways to make the lines more visible. I had nothing to do with this project, at all, but I do remember reading something about it. This was back in 2005. I am pretty sure I read about it at least once before that date. It was probably in Public Roads which is an inexpensive print (now online) publication that's all about roads. It's just six issues per year and is pretty much mandatory reading, It's not that expensive and I think the online version is free but I don't recall them having a handy way to download it and browse it offline. Someone who writes a lot like me may actually have published some content in said magazine. Oh, the link:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publi...
Ah well... If you're in the industry and are looking for a way to get your name out there then it's not too hard to get your stuff printed in there. The information's on the site or in the print version. I no longer get the print version, I haven't in years. When I cleaned out my office and a back room, one of the things I made it a point to keep was my many books, trade magazines, and various non-business owned documents.
Yeah, we called those "suicide lanes" where you've got traffic going in both directions and a central turning lane. We're not always in control of what they do but we always advised against it. It's even more stupid when they've got double lanes going in both directions with a single central turning lane. Someone, not myself, was recommending them a bit in the mid-to-late-90s and early-00s but many of them have been removed. Usually they're removed by making the lanes a bit bigger and increasing the breakdown lane's width.
I'm kind of surprised you have a new one. I'm assuming it is new because you said "revised." If it is as you describe, it's dangerous because it's needless and people don't know how to drive. If it's a new feature, expect some more accidents. If it's the five lane configuration, expect some of those accidents to be serious but that's probably not a concern for you, you said three lanes.
They're one of the more accident prone configurations and I'm not sure why people would still be using them. Well, no... I know *why* certain "traffic engineers" would be still recommending them - I'm just not sure why they're listened to or gainfully employed. For the sake of politeness, I'll try to not badmouth the industry but I'm not the least bit impressed with the quality of work in some cases.
So, yeah, avoid the suicide lane. If possible, to to the next light and reverse course there - it's actually safer at the light-controlled intersections. Any of those that were put in place should be on their way out by now. That they're just putting them in, in a redesign, is telling but I've seen a few others that were either done recently or resurfaced recently so you're not alone. It's a straight up stupid idea to use them. In theory, they're great. In reality, people can't drive worth a fuck.
Depending on your jurisdiction, those lines may be advisories and not law. They are often placed solely at the discretion of the line painter on the truck who is subject to making errors. In very few instances are lines painted with any sort of precision. If you read the laws carefully, you may find that they're only there as advice. That has a few meanings, it also means that you can be cited for passing in a marked passing zone if the observing officer believes it to be dangerous - I believe a common choice of verbiage is "unsafe pass" and a longer name on the actual law in the books. Driving to endanger is also a fun one that can be pulled out and used if they don't like the way you passed or you legitimately passed in an unsafe manner.
That said, I have been out of the industry for 8 years. I'd not say that I'm current with the latest research. I would say that I'm still very familiar. I would also say that I've kept my finger on the pulse. It's hard not to.
The first thing to say, and I'll try to keep this short, is that it'd be silly to compare much of the driving in the other countries to what we experience in the US. The continental European driving will be similar. The UK is a bit different - drive across by means of a tunnel and ferry. This will be different than the driving in the US, Japan, continental Asia, Africa, etc... These variations are not strictly along country borders but different geographical and cultural areas also have different driving styles, needs, and laws. Some individual States in the US have markedly different driving styles within their own borders.
The second thing I'll say is that I'd need some SERIOUS consideration before I'd recommend this step in any locale. I would want to see a whole lot of proof before I recommended anyone removing center line markings, at least not not systematically. There are a couple of areas where I can see not adding them if they do not already exist. (And I'd be unlikely to have been consulted on such a route.) If you want to go for maximum safety, should space and budget allow, then a few meridian design options are known to be the safest division.
If the width of the entire paved surface is smaller than two minimal sized lanes, I'd suggest not painting a center line if it does not already exist. However, center-lane *and* outer-lane markings are ideal, where applicable and in the US. I'd have to dredge up some very old paperwork (and it's probably on paper) to offer an opinion about that aspect specifically for the UK. But, I'd need to see a whole lot of research and evidence before I recommended that this be done - and the burden of proof increases greatly in order to recommend this as a unilateral change.
Oh, and before anyone says anything about them driving on the wrong side of the road in the UK. It's worth noting that the UK drives on the left, traffic passing on the right, because doing so makes it easier to kill you. Yes, the UK drives on the left so they can kill you better. (Swords were wielded in the right hand with scabbard on the left.) It's also worth noting that some early automobiles, designed and built in the US, had right-hand drive configurations.
A number of folks claim that the US (as well as some other countries that were once colonies) drive on the right as a political statement against the United Kingdom. I don't know that anyone has provided decent evidence for that claim. I have heard a number of tales about it, some of them included patriotic people and damned near heroic deeds. If I recall correctly, most attribute driving on the right (in the US, at least) not to politics with the UK but because of the teamsters.
While I'm here, the pedal configuration is the same in the UK and something like 1/3 of automobiles are manufactured for right-hand drive. The shifting lever is (generally) always facing the center. Over the years, we've had lots of configurations for vehicle controls with varied knobs, sliders, pedals, and twisty things. There have been designs where the driver sits in th
That'd be one of the things I tried to bring to folks attention about ten years ago. I also suggested unions but really felt the emphasis should be on a trade association - perhaps similar to the various engineering disciplines. I suggested that folks look into unions, not necessarily formal unions but a communication forum designated to trade health would have been a good start (I think).
Something like certification (yes, I know) but one handed down by the organization and yes, with some protectionism in mind. I know, it's great to be independent but a whole lot of people speaking as one can have a much greater effect than many speaking as individuals. Think of the saved effort, greater efficiency, and more concentrated effect it *could* have.
I suspect it's too late for that now. I guess you could do it now and hope it bears fruit later. There's no reason to not get together and get things going. Get big, get employer buy-in, and work to establish credibility. There are lots of things to try, or to have tried, and it's true that some ideas are better than others but you can see how far they're all getting with nobody doing anything. The few that are doing anything are mostly duplicating work.
Sometimes you have to stop worrying about your differences and start to pay attention to the things you have in common. People have been talking for years. People have even used the "raising awareness" line on it.
"I'm helping, I'm raising awareness." "I'm doing my part, I'm opening the dialogue." "It's important that people know about this."
Add that to, sometimes the best way to take care of yourself is actually to help other people. What was that phrase from back in Latin? Erf... Ah, manus manum lavat. I mentioned in a post earlier, the missing ingredient is solidarity. No software or laws can fix that.
I do program a little bit but I am not a programmer - even though I have done a lot of programming in the past. While I was programming I was not really a very good programmer. Oh, it worked. Eventually. It even did much of what I wanted, in some fashion. I had someone with me at the start, he was a CS grad who did more "ops" than "dev." I just kind of asked him if he wanted to help so he doesn't really count for this metric. The first person I hired, after the business was running, was a programmer.
I programmed in C but I did some Perl, some BASIC, even some QBASIC at one point. Oh, I can bang out bad code in a handful of languages even today. I am not a programmer. I do not even have a passing familiarity with Java though, funny enough, I've been talking about learning it lately because I have a project at hand and it's more difficult than I thought it would be. I turns out, there are no handy dandy libraries for what I want to do in C. However, Java has a library for everything. Java has a library to optimize the efficiency of a sock gnome, complete with web interaction and remote hosting. And yes, you can bundle it into a .jar and have it work across all the major platforms...
At any rate, I mention that to basically tell you that I have no idea what you're talking about. So, I went to the all-knowing Google. The whole phrase as a search query was not refined enough. I took out the "Java" and it returned one result. That result might mean something - as it appeared to be sort of topical. It was a bug, on RedHat's bug-tracker about JBoss using too much memory.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/sh...
I read it and I am still not entirely sure what is going on. It looks like they're setting some sort of Java setting via the terminal. At first blush, it looks like they're setting Java to use more than 128 GB. So, unless I'm missing something then I am lost. 'Cause I'm not exactly sure why you'd need to set Java to use that much RAM. I'm usually pretty imaginative but I can't even think of why someone'd want to do that on a workstation or a server. Being exactly the opposite of an expert, I'm pretty sure that if you're using 128 GB of RAM with your Java app then you're either doing something brilliant or you're doing something horribly wrong.
I guess I could benchmark it and use a burn-in test to get the RAM to peg out at full. I don't think I've done a benchmark or burn-in for a lot of years. I just don't bother any more. Hmm... I need a good forum to show them off. What's the point of doing all that if you can't show off the numbers? ;-)
But, really, I'm not really sure why anyone would want to run your command. Someone probably has a good reason. Not me. :/
"Most" people "totally freak out" when you prove that to them?
Hmm... I'll accept some extrapolation and we can work with that. But what do you mean by "totally freak out?" I also suspect there's some selection bias? I'm assuming (having not checked) that the vast majority of people that I know are actually aware of this or would be able to reason it out pretty quickly and just accept the fact.
Out of curiosity, what sort of numbers do you have for folks you've shared that tidbit of information with and what area of the globe is that?
I'm going to hope two things... One, I'm going to hope that there's a whole heap of selection bias. Two, I'm going to hope we've got *very* different definitions for "totally freak out." It's radiation, you're being exposed to radiation all the time - it's not just in you but all around you. We've got a big ol' giant ball of radiation coming up right now. We're literally being bombarded with radiation all the time.
But, damn it, that's the good healthy, natural, radiation! ;-)
Seriously, "most" people are "totally freaked out" when they learn this? Many years ago, my daughter came home from elementary school and, after a while, she broke down in tears. The teacher had told her that someday the Sun was going to go out and that all of the life on Earth would cease to exist. Her younger brother was listening in and he joined her in the tear shedding. I still have the chance to remind them of that. That's what I'd call "totally freaked out."
Ah, thanks. I was reading the thread and I'd wondered where I'd heard "LENR" before. Now I remember. It's what they used for a term when everyone ignored them after they'd used the phrase 'cold fusion.' I do not know a whole hell of a lot so I am incapable of offering a qualified opinion on the validity of cold fusion. Everything I do know, which is not a whole lot, says that it doesn't seem likely.
What I do know is that there are people who know much more than I, some of them with great reputations and great accomplishments in that specific field, who have indicated that it is extremely unlikely. Why the careful verbiage used by me? I do not know enough to come out and say that it's complete bunk. So, thank you for the reminder and I think I'll continue to trust the experts who indicate that generating energy via cold fusion is unlikely.
I seem to recall that one of them had a video, quite some time ago, that laid out the reasons (in simple enough terms that even a KGIII could get it) why the premise is itself fundamentally flawed. I can't find the video now. It might even pre-date YouTube, yikes! I'm sure that tech has moved forward. I'm not sure that reality has fundamentally changed. I do believe they equivocated cold fusion with either anti-gravity or perpetual motion and had some basic laws of thermodynamics that made it unlikely, if not impossible. (I want to say impossible but I am not an expert and not recollecting the exact words used.)
Alas, I can not find the video... That is unfortunate because the guy was going right to town in it and having a good time tearing it up. It was a segment, with a panel of people (maybe?), and akin to the TED talks. In my efforts to find this video, I did come across something else. Amusingly enough, it seems to indicate my memory is at least partially correct. More amusingly, Google redirected me to Slashdot. So, here is said link:
http://science.slashdot.org/st...
If anyone else is confused as to why LENR sounds familiar, now we know. Much thanks!
Err... I can't believe you're asking for citations? Really? I can understand some healthy skepticism but there are actually SCIENTIFIC PAPERS published on this. But, let me help you out... I searched first for "china scientific fraud" and found that there were papers on this subject but I clicked on the first, non-scientific, paper:
http://www.ibtimes.com/chinas-...
The money quote:
Just last month, BioMed Central, an open-access publisher based in Britain, retracted 43 papers, most of them from Chinese researchers, after discovering that reviewers who had supposedly signed off on the studies were made up by agencies hired by the original authors.
I liked their phrase better, so I searched for "china scientific credibility" and figured that I'd find you some more information though, to be honest, I've no idea why you want it as it's obvious you're not actually a scientist or following science with any great enthusiasm...
Here's one about the "credibility paradox" that China faces. Zhang is Chinese, by the way.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
It's so prolific that China had to BAN dishonesty in scientific research... Ban it, by law... They just banned it recently, as in very recently. Who knows if it has actually had any real-world results? I'm thinking that "probably not" is a good answer. That should not be misread to make it seem as if I'm claiming this research is fraudulent. See below as to why I'm a bit skeptical about it having any major, real-world, long-term, impact. The link to cite that for you too:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article...
It baffles me that you have no idea and would ask for citations. They've plagiarized a ton of stuff, fabricated stuff, and made stuff up out of whole cloth and, by most accounts, that's actually due to governmental pressures. Some are inclined to believe that it is cultural. Being a bit of a pragmatist, I don't see why it can't be both. However, that's not my area so I probably am not qualified to speculate as to the reasoning.
At any rate, WTF are you going to actually *do* with a citation? This is Slashdot, not Wikipedia, and you're not a scientist - I know because this is endemic across the entire board of studies, you'd know about it if you were a scientist or even just an enthusiast. Either way, there's a whole shit-ton more articles (and actual published research) on China's reputation in all things science.
Hmm... I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that the US doesn't have a manned spaceflight program - they just don't use their own rockets or launch facilities for that program and knowingly put themselves into that position. However they (we) have a manned spaceflight program. They/we just don't launch any manned spaceflight vehicles. NASA is still putting people in space, they're just paying someone else to do the lifting part of it.
I have 20 tabs open in Opera, that's based on Chromium. Currently, it indicates that I'm running 6.7 GB. I think I've seen it peak at around 14 GB as I recall - with normal usage. It can eat a bit more when compiling or something similar but that doesn't even really eat a whole lot. Then again, I really don't do as much with a computer as I used to. So much of my time is just as a passive consumer. I'm working to change that - thus the excuse to buy this laptop. It's pretty damned sexy.
Go stupid with the configuration at this site:
http://www.titancomputers.com/...
I got to skip an OS and software but I tweaked the rest and spent a silly amount of money but it's worth it, in my opinion. Then again, I probably wouldn't have bought it if my opinion was not that it was worth it. So, there's that. However, have a look if you want. I gotta tell you... I've been *very* pleased with my purchase. It runs Lubuntu just fine and I've not even had to install the proprietary drivers - even the camera works. Hell, I don't actually use the camera for anything but I tested it and it's surprisingly good. It's not easy to find a good, full size, laptop. I splurged and got a couple of external drives from them - including the optical drive. I could have picked those up anywhere and at a better price but, what the hell.
At any rate, it's a fantastic piece of equipment but far more power than I use. Even as I sort of move back to the point where I'm less of a consumer, it's still more power than I need. Even if it would be slow, I could probably manage just fine on 4 GB of RAM and 8 would be enough. As I mentioned above, there's some difference when I go to from 16 to 32 as I do, sometimes, use more RAM than that. But, normally that's not the case and I don't believe I've done so on this laptop yet. I've had it for more than a month and I really don't think I've gone above 14 GB or so. So, I've put 64 in a few boxes and this laptop has 64 but I'm still trying to figure out what someone would do, meant to be done on a workstation - which is kind of a specific category, that would take 256 GB of RAM.
To be fair, I thought it was 128 GB at first. That doesn't change the nature of the beast. Video rendering gets farmed out or done on an in-house server. Video editing, maybe? I thought that was being pushed to a server and run by remote now? Even compiling is now done on a server and not on the workstation. They've got dedicated "build boxes." Maybe CAD? What CAD software has been compiled to run on this architecture?
I still don't get it. :/
I, too, am an automobile aficionado. I not only race a little bit (we've an pro-am rally circuit in my area with some nice routes) but I drove as a profession, worked in the industry, and now own what can best be called a "stable of cars." (I've actually posted pics of some of the more interesting ones. They are probably not what you'd guess.) I am not home but the car I have with me is a rather up-scale, "sport" edition, rather beefy 6 series BMW. I've even gone so far as to spend a couple of weeks in Germany, taking classes and then hiring a coach and doing laps in rented exotics at Nuburgring. I don't just love driving, I love the automobile. I love the engine, I love the noise, I love every bit about driving and that includes driving in traffic. I own a restored and modified 1982 Volvo 245 specifically because it's RWD and a whole bowl of fun in the snow. Yes, a 245. I also have a 911 ('78 in Targa trim) but that's mentioned to give you a bit of perspective as to where I'm coming from.
So, I think I'm entitled to opine. You are not obligated to agree or even listen.
But, ludicrous mode... Yes, I'm buying a Tesla just for that. The missus can drive it most of the time. I'm buying it for that and for that alone. I've driven one, before that mode was enabled, and it's actually similar to driving a 7-series. It's big but once you get the hang of it, it feels lighter on its feet than it is - the center of gravity is really low. The torque is instant. The ability to throw in some understeer is fantastic - once you realize that it's 2.25 tons.
I'm not just an automobile aficionado. I'm a driving enthusiast. How can I not buy a Tesla? My love is big enough for both an ICE and an EV. My thrill, some 45+ years after I first drove a car, is still the same when I get in it - even if it's to just go to a store. I go out of my way to drive - to this day. I don't even dislike driving in traffic. I have yet to drive one vehicle (and I've driven a whole lot of 'em) that I can't find a redeeming quality for - and I've driven a Lada. If it has wheels, I've driven something like it - where legal. Some of the things I've driven don't even have wheels. Some have as few as a single wheel but that was really riding. I'm happy when I'm driving a golf-cart or an electric wheelchair. I've driven things with a whole slew of wheels - as many as 22 wheels to be exact and not counting spares.
How can I not buy a Tesla? Ownership doesn't preclude my ownership and enjoyment of other things. No, my heart's big enough for all of 'em and it really will be vibrating with joy when I have one of my own to play with. The one I drove belonged to a friend, a trusting friend who told me to drive it like I stole it, but I didn't really get the chance to find all its quirks and fully understand the handling characteristics or find all the limits. I will put myself on the list to buy one once I'm back home and able to take delivery of one.
It doesn't work perfectly (or even work, really) for all of my driving needs. Not even close. My home is in Maine and 24 miles from the nearest village and over 60 miles from a real town. It's full of hills and bad weather that means I need something with more energy storage capacity than a Tesla. However, it fills a niche and will be appreciated - and used to its limits because automobiles are meant to be driven.
Again, how could I not buy one?
Hmm... Lots of the roads, specifically the large interstate highways, were built after the New Deal had ended. They were built under the auspices of Present Eisenhower. He'd seen the military and civilian value in the autobahn and wanted to emulate its successes. (Note: The autobahn was not completed and was smaller then than it is now.)
I believe the story goes a bit like this:
Eisenhower saw a photograph of some Panzers going balls out in a line down the freakin' highway. He looked to his Aide De Camp and said, in his bestest and most Generalist voice, "Shit niggah! We gotta get some of that shizat up in this bitch. Dat be some phat shit dawg. Ya hear me?" His aide said, "Fuck ya, y'all gonna get busy up in there with their cars and shit but we made that shit fo tanks. For tanks! Tanks, bitch-ass-mother-fuckers made for tanks and aint no fuck gonna know that shit. I fucking hear ya, Big D Dizzle-dawg-hower, you feel me?"
And so, in the history books it is written. The laws were passed, the research done, the money spent, and the highways made big enough for tanks but mostly used by cars and trucks.
(General Dwight Eisenhower was also known as "The Big G" but when he became president he usually went for "Super P" and, while it's only a rumor, it's generally believed that the P was for Pimp.)
And, before anyone asks/accuses, I'm actually part black (mostly Amerindian, if you're curious) and currently have three people sharing this house with me who are also black. No Ebonics were harmed in the making of this post. Also, the reasoning for why I have three people sharing the house is long and complicated but it has been fun to have all these extra people around.
Oh the things I could say... It's tempting but I'm trying to avoid novellas today. (I'm saving up.) Man, this would be a fun one to write. Ah well...
No, people don't know how to drive. In some areas, it's better than others. In all areas, the average driver is an inattentive idiot who's fortunate that the safety devices work as advertised and graced by pure, dumb, luck. People point to the number of deaths on the road and say it is too high. I say it's off my a couple of orders of magnitude from where it should rightfully be.
Some comedian speculated that they should swap the driver's side, steering wheel (yes, that actually has to be specified now), airbag for a big, sharp, steel spike. Sometimes, I'm inclined to agree.
No, most drivers know how to point and some aren't even good at that. They sure as hell don't know how to drive, but you know that. ;-) I point them out, when they're being "special," and I refer to them as the, "Mysteriously Not-Yet-Extinct North American Non-Driving Fuck with a License." I then make comments where I speculate that the reasons they're not extinct include mating habits and preservation activists who continually work to decrease their likelihood of death with engineering instead of education. Sometimes, I go so far as to agree that that's probably the best method as attempting to teach them seems like an exercise in futility.
Sorry folks but you're not in a race. Picture a *regular* glass of water that's full to the point where it's rounded over. Now picture it sitting on your dashboard. That is how you drive in snow. Lower the level a half inch for poor conditions but not snow. Low it a full inch for when the conditions are optimal. Adjust the level of water to suit the conditions. Accidents are almost always caused by driving too fast for the conditions. If you're fortunate enough to get off-road or onto a track, dump the glass out and throw it away, you don't want glass in the passenger compartment. And yes, yes there are some exceptions.
Tempting but no... You already know that the average person can't drive worth a damn and isn't interested in learning. No need to preach to the choir and most everyone else thinks they're a professional and a race car driver.
I really don't know where to thread this but your comment is good enough.
I too don't know if the hyperloop is the answer. What I do know is that it's not going to be exclusionary. It's not like they're just gonna say, "Well, we built this one. Ground the airplanes, boys. The transportation issue is settled!"
We'll still have planes, trains, and automobiles for the foreseeable future. Having options or even just exploring new things is not a bad thing. It's not like we don't have a history littered with bad ideas. What's one more? It's not like this is going to be done to the exclusion of other choices. It's not like this is some mandatory thing that we're gonna be forced to ride in.
And no, I have no vested interest in this project's success or failure.
Point of order: Trains have been attacked a hell of a lot in the US. Many more times than just once. Depending on your view, you might even attribute some of those attacks to "terrorism." (History goes back before your date of birth.) If you want to see what that turned into (when not trying to derail them and cause loss of life) then Google for Sherman's Neckties.
However, attacking a "regular passenger train" has a fine history in this country. They've attacked passenger trains, with the loss of regular passenger lives, for everything from political motivations to robbery. In the former case, the attacks were getting to be so frequent that one fort or another actually had a decoy train - which was promptly attacked by the natives. I think that would have been Fort Philip Kearny, if you want to look it up. I'm not sure how it's spelled or anything and I'm kind of lazy this morning so you get to do it on your own.
I had a few bucks burning a hole in my pocket and I'd seen an early model Tesla. Lots of people were starting to mention them in the comments at various sites. I took a look to see who was doing what and what financial information could be had. I bought 2000 shares in Tesla when they were just a bit over $24 each. I still have them. No, I hope they're not in finances or investing.
Tesla battery packs do not use regular, non-rechargeable, D cells that you pick up from a store.
I'm not white so clue me in on what I missed. What privilege did the white people get? As near as I can tell, not a whole fuck of a lot if any. By grace of heritage, I was entitled to funds to help my business and scholarships as well as privileged entrance into educational facilities - simply because I was not white.
And no, for the record, I never disclose my race on any such applications. Why? Those are telling me that I need your help and that I'm unable to do so because of my genetic makeup. What privilege does a white person, in the same situation as a person who isn't, get?
Or, alternatively, don't let code access your system that you don't want. In other words, keep it locked down. How did the malicious DLL get into that folder, specifically, and was able to be called? And, if they can do that, why not just compromise the system in a hundred other ways instead of some half-assed way that might not work by using a DLL? They've already got access rights to put the DLL there. If they can do that then why do this? Just avoid it, as a programmer, on general principle but it's hardly a bug - it's working as designed.
Heh, it's not a bug! It's a feature. Seriously though, think about it for a minute. To put the DLL there in the first place they had to have access. How'd they get that access? Yeah, if they could do that then why put a DLL there that may very well not actually do anything - ever? There is, literally, no reason to make it more difficult with less chance of success. They've already owned the box just to put the DLL there.
Currently, it is Mac only but it looks like there are a few alternatives. There's Popcorn-Time and TorrentStreaming that I've come across for Linux but I've only bothered trying one of them. I have also checked out Tribler (thanks to them letting me know about this type of thing) and that appears to be not much different than a torrent client that does prioritizing so that you can watch it while it downloads.
One is a medical doctor and the other has yet to get his doctorate and is currently in negotiations to buy and run a bar/hotel in Peru. I've mentioned both numerous times. Both will use tech but neither is tech oriented.
You jest but I'd not actually put it past them to try to propose/mandate an alternative to the traditional protocols on some form of locked-down, access controlled, proprietary network that disallowed any unapproved content or actions. Sadly, there's a number of people who not only might support that but might not notice the difference. It could easily be couched in the sentiment that it's to save the children or to thwart terrorism.
No, I don't mean a firewall like China has. I mean a complete replacement with protocols that disallow all but approved actions. If you couple it with limited hardware then it's even easier for them to do - never mind what laws they make to prohibit doing it on your own. I seriously wouldn't put it past them making such a proposal with a straight face. I'd be surprised if it didn't happen eventually. I'd not be at all surprised to find that it'd have supporters who were not in the industry but sure would be happy if they could thwart terrorists, save the children, and reduce piracy!
Yup, loads of Linux software's distributed as torrents. In fact, almost every one that I see gets downloaded and I try to add all the new versions that are announced early on. I keep 'em seeding for years sometimes. I've got the space and bandwidth, why not help out? (And yes, that is a whole lot of torrents, space, and bandwidth.)
There are plenty of legitimate uses for torrents. 'Snot just for pirating.
I know this sounds like crazy talk and the delusions of an old and feeble minded but... Err... My ISP still has Usenet. It's even still active. I've never noticed anything disappearing from it. However, I don't use it to download stuff so it's *very* unlikely that I'd have noticed anything going by-by. The surprising thing is that it's still pretty active. I do have some "warez" groups loaded and in sync but I never see anything I'm interested in. There's not a whole lot for me to pirate via Usenet when pretty much everything I do use is either free already or I don't mind supporting the company, sometimes I *want* to support the company.
My how the times change. :/