That's why I ignore most high reviews and carefully read bad reviews; people don't usually pay for those. If any of the bad reviews look like legitimate issues that I care about, I move on to the next choice.
If you've ever dialed in to a meeting where most of the other people are together in a conference room, you'd realize that there is in fact a HUGE difference between physical presence and a phone link.
To compensate for the disadvantage of getting only few percent of the bandwidth and visual cues that the others have, you have to use a large amount of mental energy to construct and maintain a model of what's going on. (Even so, you usually end up being the low man on the totem pole in the meeting.)
The same applies to any phone call, whether on speakerphone or not. Much of the extra mental energy used to maintain the phone communication gets deducted from your driving ability
Padding the schedule, alone, clearly can't change the amount of fuel that is used to get from point A to point B.
If anything, it should reduce the total amount of fuel used.
When people look up available flights, they take the scheduled time into account in making their plans. With more padding, more people will find that there aren't any flights that seem to meet the time constraints for their proposed trip, so they might forego the travel altogether or else go on a shorter alternate trip.
Your browser has permission to overwrite itself? Seems like a bad idea.
Firefox seems to use the "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" philosophy.
On my Linux machines, it's updates are solely under the control of apt/dpkg package manager, like everything else in the system.
On my Windows machine, Firefox does "ambush" upgrades whenever it feels like it, but for some reason it doesn't finish them until you try to use it. So you never know whether you'll be delayed with a "Firefox is installing the latest updates" message box when you need to access something in a hurry. It's like a miniature version of the entire Windows OS update experience.
If the TSA agent asks you to lay down on the conveyor belt, you can inform him that Federal law gives you the right to refuse to be sent through the baggage scanner.
That AC probably would never pay those sky-high COBRA premiums because he thinks he's healthy and doesn't want to subsidize all of the fatties back at his old office.
Keep telling yourself that a language that lets you pass literally anything into a method and also lets you return literally anything is strongly typed.
Python knows exactly what types you're passing. Python is a strongly typed language, unlike, for example, C. If you pass "NULL" to a C function that expects a buffer, you're likely to get a runtime crash and/or security exploit. If you pass "None" to a similar Python routine, the Python interpreter will throw an appropriate exception instead.
Language typing has two different orthogonal concepts: strong vs. weak, and static vs dynamic. Dynamic/static determines whether variables are supposed to hold a certain type, and strong/weak determines whether the language itself knows (or ensures) what type any given value has. C has static, and rather weak typing; Python has dynamic, strong typing. Other examples of different combinations are Rust, with static, strong typing, and Forth, with dynamic, weak typing.
BTW, if you feel that you are unable to master the expressiveness that comes with Python's dynamic typing, you can run pylint to get compiler-like type handholding.
As much as self-proclaimed Libertarians may hate this, this is actually a Libertarian solution because you are only paying for the damage you have done.
That's not a libertarian solution at all.
The actual libertarian solution to any problem of this sort is to simply deny that any damage is taking place.
Your plan to use magnets to separate aluminum from mixed trash intrigues me. Your aluminum seeking magnet can be powered by my perpetual motion machine.
You might be able to reduce your level of ignorance somewhat by reading this:
An eddy current separator uses a powerful magnetic field to separate non-ferrous metals from waste after all ferrous metals have been removed previously by some arrangement of magnets....
At the end of the conveyor belt is an eddy current rotor. Non-ferrous metals are thrown forward from the belt into a product bin, while non-metals simply fall off the belt due to gravity.
Even scheme that I've seen that involves getting water from air always falls apart when you look at the energy cost to change water vapor to liquid. Why not start with a few liters of already liquid gray water to split?
Because you'd probably have to distill the gray water anyway to prevent gumming up the system.
A bigger version of this problem has already been solved on the Web with TLS. The Telcos could implement a similar solution (which could be much simpler due to the constrained nature of their proprietary systems) if they'd only get off of their asses and do it.
So you've conclusively proven that phone companies can't possibly bill their customers based on usage, since based on this lame architecture, they have no fucking idea about who is calling who.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why I ignore most high reviews and carefully read bad reviews; people don't usually pay for those. If any of the bad reviews look like legitimate issues that I care about, I move on to the next choice.
If you've ever dialed in to a meeting where most of the other people are together in a conference room, you'd realize that there is in fact a HUGE difference between physical presence and a phone link.
To compensate for the disadvantage of getting only few percent of the bandwidth and visual cues that the others have, you have to use a large amount of mental energy to construct and maintain a model of what's going on. (Even so, you usually end up being the low man on the totem pole in the meeting.)
The same applies to any phone call, whether on speakerphone or not. Much of the extra mental energy used to maintain the phone communication gets deducted from your driving ability
Coming soon to new Google devices: A binding arbitration clause buried in the EULA referenced by the "I Agree" box.
They should have a ranking system similar to Slashdot.
If they did that, then the results of this survey would be determined solely by the the code-of-conduct on each language's homepage.
These nanodegrees sound worthless.
By my math, four years * 1e-9 = 125ms. How much can you possibly learn in that amount of time?
Padding the schedule, alone, clearly can't change the amount of fuel that is used to get from point A to point B.
If anything, it should reduce the total amount of fuel used.
When people look up available flights, they take the scheduled time into account in making their plans. With more padding, more people will find that there aren't any flights that seem to meet the time constraints for their proposed trip, so they might forego the travel altogether or else go on a shorter alternate trip.
Don't expect drivers to install a huge-ass drone platform on their car
Well, thanks to the miracle of magnetic fields, many of them already put huge-ass lighted signs on top of their cars.
Forty years of vi vs emacs flamewars will finally come to an end now that they both can be retired.
If there's an award for pioneering achievement in computer science, this tour de force of logic surely deserves to collect it.
Your browser has permission to overwrite itself? Seems like a bad idea.
Firefox seems to use the "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" philosophy.
On my Linux machines, it's updates are solely under the control of apt/dpkg package manager, like everything else in the system.
On my Windows machine, Firefox does "ambush" upgrades whenever it feels like it, but for some reason it doesn't finish them until you try to use it. So you never know whether you'll be delayed with a "Firefox is installing the latest updates" message box when you need to access something in a hurry. It's like a miniature version of the entire Windows OS update experience.
The article linked by the AC on *this* thread is not the main article, and the AC's link *is* about CT scanning persons.
No one said anything about directly CT scanning persons.
The article that the AC linked is about directly CT scanning persons.
Sure, this sounds convenient, but is it worth the radiation? https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2015/01/the-surprising-dangers-of-ct-sans-and-x-rays/index.htm
If the TSA agent asks you to lay down on the conveyor belt, you can inform him that Federal law gives you the right to refuse to be sent through the baggage scanner.
That AC probably would never pay those sky-high COBRA premiums because he thinks he's healthy and doesn't want to subsidize all of the fatties back at his old office.
hope you break your neck in an accident the next time you're between jobs.
Yeah, using some moronic allusion to "English polymorphism" to try to weasel out of the standard definition of strong vs weak typing.
Enjoy your buffer overruns.
Keep telling yourself that a language that lets you pass literally anything into a method and also lets you return literally anything is strongly typed.
Python knows exactly what types you're passing. Python is a strongly typed language, unlike, for example, C. If you pass "NULL" to a C function that expects a buffer, you're likely to get a runtime crash and/or security exploit. If you pass "None" to a similar Python routine, the Python interpreter will throw an appropriate exception instead.
Language typing has two different orthogonal concepts: strong vs. weak, and static vs dynamic. Dynamic/static determines whether variables are supposed to hold a certain type, and strong/weak determines whether the language itself knows (or ensures) what type any given value has. C has static, and rather weak typing; Python has dynamic, strong typing. Other examples of different combinations are Rust, with static, strong typing, and Forth, with dynamic, weak typing.
BTW, if you feel that you are unable to master the expressiveness that comes with Python's dynamic typing, you can run pylint to get compiler-like type handholding.
As much as self-proclaimed Libertarians may hate this, this is actually a Libertarian solution because you are only paying for the damage you have done.
That's not a libertarian solution at all.
The actual libertarian solution to any problem of this sort is to simply deny that any damage is taking place.
Your plan to use magnets to separate aluminum from mixed trash intrigues me. Your aluminum seeking magnet can be powered by my perpetual motion machine.
You might be able to reduce your level of ignorance somewhat by reading this:
An eddy current separator uses a powerful magnetic field to separate non-ferrous metals from waste after all ferrous metals have been removed previously by some arrangement of magnets. ...
At the end of the conveyor belt is an eddy current rotor. Non-ferrous metals are thrown forward from the belt into a product bin, while non-metals simply fall off the belt due to gravity.
I found the bug in my migration script. That damned byzantine "sh" language syntax strikes again:
Looks like I forgot the spaces around "=". Oh well, live and learn.
Even scheme that I've seen that involves getting water from air always falls apart when you look at the energy cost to change water vapor to liquid. Why not start with a few liters of already liquid gray water to split?
Because you'd probably have to distill the gray water anyway to prevent gumming up the system.
Pax? Is that the latest /. AC lingo?
It's the standard aviation industry term for passenger.
Presumably, the term is a an abbreviation for "Paxed in like sardines".
A bigger version of this problem has already been solved on the Web with TLS. The Telcos could implement a similar solution (which could be much simpler due to the constrained nature of their proprietary systems) if they'd only get off of their asses and do it.
So you've conclusively proven that phone companies can't possibly bill their customers based on usage, since based on this lame architecture, they have no fucking idea about who is calling who.
Either that, or you're just plain wrong.