...and that it's still not uncommon for many people today to have grandparents who grew up speaking Italian, German, Polish, Norwegian, etc. at home instead of English.
/me waves
My grandfather (born in the early 20th century) learned Yiddish from his parents at home, learned French from the rest of the neighborhood, and didn't learn English until he started school.
But I'm guessing 90% of the exits here in the USA use "Bancroft", not "2A".
I'm guessing that you're guessing wrong. I've only driven in the northeastern US, but every major highway (and many not-so-major highways) I've been on uses exit numbers with one or two location names (usually a street or city/town) underneath. I just wish more states would switch from sequential exit numbers to mile-based exit numbers.
So what comes first, solar sources or electric car demands?
In terms of modern widespread usage, solar electricity came first. All-electric cars are still in the early adopter phase (though quickly approaching the end of it), while solar electricity is pretty well into the common availability phase.
Is this simple as, planet warms up, crops cannot grow, animal stock starve, people starve, and people die. If enough people die, this reduces the amount of pollutants and eventually the temperature cools down. It might be a rocky few centuries for humanity, but I expect a few will survive in pockets on basic food like rodents and bugs.
Basically, yes. A lot of hippies think that we're destroying "Mother Earth" with Climate Change. No, the planet doesn't care, and it will recover from it just fine. Humans are the ones that are going to be completely fucked. We don't need to fix the problem to save the planet, we need to fix the problem to save our own asses.
My own confession - when I was around 4 or so, I was chatting with my father about our car. That was in the days where you weren't constrained to a seat belt. I was standing on the seat beside him and he was showing me things like the spedometer and odometer, and gas guage. He told me that the further we travel, the lower the gas gets in the tank, and eventually it runs out.
My logical but completely wrong mind jumped to the conclusion that driving the car forward removed gas from the tank, so driving in reverse should fill it.
When I was a kid, I thought the car somehow determined how hard it was raining and adjusted the speed of the windshield wipers automatically. Many kids today will think the same thing, except this time they'll be right.
Against Nazis and white supremacists. Uh oh, slashdot didn't delete my comment, it must be biased too!
I mean, what are the chances that Nazis and KKK members are hated by most of society, and that it becomes reflected in a platform used by large portions of society?
My first thought was basically this. Does Twitter's political bias cause them to ban people who post things about less industrial regulation and lower taxes, or are they banning people that post about how much they hate blacks, Muslims, and "teh gays".
Modern cars are unnecessary complex to meet safety and emission regulations. These are not "free", they add both upfront and lifetime costs.
You legislated 40MPG, 5 star offset crash rating, collision avoidance-equipped car and you go it. Only it costs an arm and a leg to buy and repair.
Better to pay an arm and a leg than to lose an arm and a leg.
I would think that DRM is only part of the equation - if you "hack" the firmware, isn't there a good chance you'll be illegally using somebody's patent somewhere (especially if you are a third party, ie repair company).
You may think this will work in your favour comin' but I think you gotta watch yourself goin'.
It's highly unlikely that repairing a device would be considered "making" the device, and a repair shop isn't selling your device (even if there wasn't the Doctrine of First Sale), so the only possible patent violation would be using the device. Since you legally purchased the device, you also have an implicit license to use any of the manufacturer's patents for that device.
As a general optimistic estimate, "90% of everything is crap." Older things look a little better because most of the bottom 80% has been lost, forgotten, or willfully ignored.
Fortunately, the very bottom of that 80% has been immortalized by MST3K.
That's because different technologies improve independently of each other and at different rates.
For fat clients vs. thin clients, there are three general factors for which is better: available processing power on the desktop, available processing power on the server, and network bandwith and latency. Make up a number called the "Thinness Factor", where TF = (Server*Network)/Desktop. If server power is so much greater than desktop power that the performance loss due to the network doesn't make up for the difference (TF > 1), then thin clients are better and people will start using them more. If losses from the network are high enough, though (TF < 1), people are better off having their own desktop computers.
Since those three factors improve by different amounts over time, the better option also changes over time.
Credit where it's due, back in February he nailed the fact that the SEC had an investigation open:
Wait, he knew in February that the SEC was investigating a statement that was made 6 months later? That dude isn't a journalist, he's a fucking Time Lord.
... new entrants will raise the necessary capital to compete with it...
Much easier said than done. What happens when the necessary capital to enter the market is tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. See, for example, trying to run cables to start an ISP.
If you want to get really pedantic, scientific theories are never "proven" to be correct, they are only shown to make correct predictions. Proofs are for mathematicians; scientists only care about reproducible experiments.
So, if it is the FOURTH warmest... does that mean it is getting cooler now?
If by "now" you mean the period of time between last year and this year, sure.
But climate is naturally noisy. Even without any climate change, average temperature isn't the same from year to year; in roughly half of all years, the average temperature will be lower than the year before, and in the other half it will be higher than the year before. If climate change adds a small increase to every year, then you end up with, for example, 75% of all years with an increase and 25% with a decrease. In such a scenario, the overall trend is increasing, even if there's a decrease pretty often.
Here are some numbers to illustrate. This is a list of all integers between -10 and 10 (generated by using random.shuffle in Python):
Nevertheless, the idea that religion is the reason we have medical care is moronic at best. Religion, generally, has blamed various afflictions on demons or angry gods. If a demon is the reason you have the sniffles, what the fuck would be the point of attempting to treat them with medicine? Better to go get a really big knife and let the demon out... Problem solved..
One could argue that religion could be a reason we have medical care if your religion promotes the value of human life. I'm not stating definitively that this is how medical science came about, I'm only pointing out that it isn't logically inconsistent.
The Torah has an entire chapter about diagnosing and quarantining skin disease (usually translated as leprosy, but clearly not the disease that's called leprosy now), and even a section about some kind of mold infestation in a home. So clearly there was a desire to have working medical treatments, but obviously it was quite limited 3,000 years ago.
If I understand correctly, you seem to be part of the group I mentioned that thinks the Torah is nothing but mythology. Will a few examples convince you that it does indeed contain plenty of civil law?
How about welfare? "And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corner of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather the fallen fruit of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and for the stranger" (Leviticus 19:9-10); "And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corner of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest; thou shalt leave them for the poor, and for the stranger" (Leviticus 23:22)
Or how about labor law? "Thou shalt not oppress a hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates. In the same day thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it; for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it" (Deuteronomy 24:14-15)
Or maybe building codes? "When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a parapet for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thy house, if any man fall from thence." (Deuteronomy 22:8)
Want something really boring, like liability for damages caused by your animals? "And if an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die, the ox shall be surely stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. But if the ox was wont to gore in time past, and warning hath been given to its owner, and he hath not kept it in, but it hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. If there be laid on him a ransom, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatsoever is laid upon him." (Exodus 21:28-30); "And if one man's ox hurt another's, so that it dieth; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the price of it; and the dead also they shall divide. Or if it be known that the ox was wont to gore in time past, and its owner hath not kept it in; he shall surely pay ox for ox, and the dead beast shall be his own." (Exodus 21:35-36).
But what this does mean is that it doesn't matter how carefully you read the text. The Bible doesn't make a starting point for a viable society. Which is why the US has such a clear separation of Church and State. Because it's too hard to agree on how to read a religion.
Which Bible (or part of) do you mean? The Torah obviously makes a starting point for a viable society, because that's exactly what it was. Like much of the world at the time, religion was tribal, and there was very little, if any, separation between the tribe's spirituality and its civil law. A lot of people seem to think that Genesis is the entire Bible and ignore all of the civil law that's found in the rest of the Torah.
Slashdot Mirror
That's true, but that doesn't mean that gold has zero intrinsic value, only that the intrinsic value is much lower than the current market price.
People suck, and that's why we can't have nice things.
...and that it's still not uncommon for many people today to have grandparents who grew up speaking Italian, German, Polish, Norwegian, etc. at home instead of English.
/me waves
My grandfather (born in the early 20th century) learned Yiddish from his parents at home, learned French from the rest of the neighborhood, and didn't learn English until he started school.
But I'm guessing 90% of the exits here in the USA use "Bancroft", not "2A".
I'm guessing that you're guessing wrong. I've only driven in the northeastern US, but every major highway (and many not-so-major highways) I've been on uses exit numbers with one or two location names (usually a street or city/town) underneath. I just wish more states would switch from sequential exit numbers to mile-based exit numbers.
and volia!
Well that's a new one.
Hadash is the Hebrew word for "new". Hadashot literally translates to "news".
So what comes first, solar sources or electric car demands?
In terms of modern widespread usage, solar electricity came first. All-electric cars are still in the early adopter phase (though quickly approaching the end of it), while solar electricity is pretty well into the common availability phase.
Lots of lawsuits are about "stop doing that", not about "pay me money".
If a lawsuit makes a company stop doing something bad to millions of people, isn't that a good thing?
If the settlement costs less than the profit made from doing something bad, how does the settlement stop them from doing something bad?
Is this simple as, planet warms up, crops cannot grow, animal stock starve, people starve, and people die. If enough people die, this reduces the amount of pollutants and eventually the temperature cools down. It might be a rocky few centuries for humanity, but I expect a few will survive in pockets on basic food like rodents and bugs.
Basically, yes. A lot of hippies think that we're destroying "Mother Earth" with Climate Change. No, the planet doesn't care, and it will recover from it just fine. Humans are the ones that are going to be completely fucked. We don't need to fix the problem to save the planet, we need to fix the problem to save our own asses.
My own confession - when I was around 4 or so, I was chatting with my father about our car. That was in the days where you weren't constrained to a seat belt. I was standing on the seat beside him and he was showing me things like the spedometer and odometer, and gas guage. He told me that the further we travel, the lower the gas gets in the tank, and eventually it runs out.
My logical but completely wrong mind jumped to the conclusion that driving the car forward removed gas from the tank, so driving in reverse should fill it.
When I was a kid, I thought the car somehow determined how hard it was raining and adjusted the speed of the windshield wipers automatically. Many kids today will think the same thing, except this time they'll be right.
Against Nazis and white supremacists. Uh oh, slashdot didn't delete my comment, it must be biased too!
I mean, what are the chances that Nazis and KKK members are hated by most of society, and that it becomes reflected in a platform used by large portions of society?
My first thought was basically this. Does Twitter's political bias cause them to ban people who post things about less industrial regulation and lower taxes, or are they banning people that post about how much they hate blacks, Muslims, and "teh gays".
Modern cars are unnecessary complex to meet safety and emission regulations. These are not "free", they add both upfront and lifetime costs. You legislated 40MPG, 5 star offset crash rating, collision avoidance-equipped car and you go it. Only it costs an arm and a leg to buy and repair.
Better to pay an arm and a leg than to lose an arm and a leg.
I would think that DRM is only part of the equation - if you "hack" the firmware, isn't there a good chance you'll be illegally using somebody's patent somewhere (especially if you are a third party, ie repair company).
You may think this will work in your favour comin' but I think you gotta watch yourself goin'.
It's highly unlikely that repairing a device would be considered "making" the device, and a repair shop isn't selling your device (even if there wasn't the Doctrine of First Sale), so the only possible patent violation would be using the device. Since you legally purchased the device, you also have an implicit license to use any of the manufacturer's patents for that device.
As a general optimistic estimate, "90% of everything is crap." Older things look a little better because most of the bottom 80% has been lost, forgotten, or willfully ignored.
Fortunately, the very bottom of that 80% has been immortalized by MST3K.
That's because different technologies improve independently of each other and at different rates.
For fat clients vs. thin clients, there are three general factors for which is better: available processing power on the desktop, available processing power on the server, and network bandwith and latency. Make up a number called the "Thinness Factor", where TF = (Server*Network)/Desktop. If server power is so much greater than desktop power that the performance loss due to the network doesn't make up for the difference (TF > 1), then thin clients are better and people will start using them more. If losses from the network are high enough, though (TF < 1), people are better off having their own desktop computers.
Since those three factors improve by different amounts over time, the better option also changes over time.
None, as far as I can tell. Was it at -1 when you posted?
Credit where it's due, back in February he nailed the fact that the SEC had an investigation open:
Wait, he knew in February that the SEC was investigating a statement that was made 6 months later? That dude isn't a journalist, he's a fucking Time Lord.
... quantum computer cryptanalysis would also destroy all existing blockchain implementations and cryptocurrencies.
I fail to see the problem.
... new entrants will raise the necessary capital to compete with it...
Much easier said than done. What happens when the necessary capital to enter the market is tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. See, for example, trying to run cables to start an ISP.
If you want to get really pedantic, scientific theories are never "proven" to be correct, they are only shown to make correct predictions. Proofs are for mathematicians; scientists only care about reproducible experiments.
So, if it is the FOURTH warmest... does that mean it is getting cooler now?
If by "now" you mean the period of time between last year and this year, sure.
But climate is naturally noisy. Even without any climate change, average temperature isn't the same from year to year; in roughly half of all years, the average temperature will be lower than the year before, and in the other half it will be higher than the year before. If climate change adds a small increase to every year, then you end up with, for example, 75% of all years with an increase and 25% with a decrease. In such a scenario, the overall trend is increasing, even if there's a decrease pretty often.
Here are some numbers to illustrate. This is a list of all integers between -10 and 10 (generated by using random.shuffle in Python):
-10, 5, 7, -2, 4, 8, 10, 3, -1, -4, 2, -6, -7, -3, -8, 9, 0, 6, -9, 1, -5
The sum of these integers is 0, i.e. no total change over time. Now add 2 to each of those numbers:
-8, 7, 9, 0, 6, 10, 12, 5, 1, -2, 4, -4, -5, -1, -6, 11, 2, 8, -7, 3, -3
There are still 8 negative numbers out of 21 numbers total, but the net change is +42, more than 4 times the largest single increase.
Maybe after this fails, people will actually remember how terrible it is and not do it again. Maybe.
Haha, good one.
Nevertheless, the idea that religion is the reason we have medical care is moronic at best. Religion, generally, has blamed various afflictions on demons or angry gods. If a demon is the reason you have the sniffles, what the fuck would be the point of attempting to treat them with medicine? Better to go get a really big knife and let the demon out... Problem solved..
One could argue that religion could be a reason we have medical care if your religion promotes the value of human life. I'm not stating definitively that this is how medical science came about, I'm only pointing out that it isn't logically inconsistent.
The Torah has an entire chapter about diagnosing and quarantining skin disease (usually translated as leprosy, but clearly not the disease that's called leprosy now), and even a section about some kind of mold infestation in a home. So clearly there was a desire to have working medical treatments, but obviously it was quite limited 3,000 years ago.
If I understand correctly, you seem to be part of the group I mentioned that thinks the Torah is nothing but mythology. Will a few examples convince you that it does indeed contain plenty of civil law?
How about welfare? "And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corner of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather the fallen fruit of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and for the stranger" (Leviticus 19:9-10); "And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corner of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest; thou shalt leave them for the poor, and for the stranger" (Leviticus 23:22)
Or how about labor law? "Thou shalt not oppress a hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates. In the same day thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it; for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it" (Deuteronomy 24:14-15)
Or maybe building codes? "When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a parapet for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thy house, if any man fall from thence." (Deuteronomy 22:8)
Want something really boring, like liability for damages caused by your animals? "And if an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die, the ox shall be surely stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. But if the ox was wont to gore in time past, and warning hath been given to its owner, and he hath not kept it in, but it hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. If there be laid on him a ransom, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatsoever is laid upon him." (Exodus 21:28-30); "And if one man's ox hurt another's, so that it dieth; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the price of it; and the dead also they shall divide. Or if it be known that the ox was wont to gore in time past, and its owner hath not kept it in; he shall surely pay ox for ox, and the dead beast shall be his own." (Exodus 21:35-36).
But what this does mean is that it doesn't matter how carefully you read the text. The Bible doesn't make a starting point for a viable society. Which is why the US has such a clear separation of Church and State. Because it's too hard to agree on how to read a religion.
Which Bible (or part of) do you mean? The Torah obviously makes a starting point for a viable society, because that's exactly what it was. Like much of the world at the time, religion was tribal, and there was very little, if any, separation between the tribe's spirituality and its civil law. A lot of people seem to think that Genesis is the entire Bible and ignore all of the civil law that's found in the rest of the Torah.