Why is war an assumed mandatory condition for space travelers?
Nobody assumes it's mandatory for space travellers.
Lots of people assume it's mandatory if you want to make a profit selling your space-themed video game. And they're probably right about that.
I love the idea of electric cars, and Tesla is on my "lottery win" shopping list. With that said, if you apply hard numbers these cars do not make any sense at the current gas prices.
The truth is that none of the cars in the luxury category make any economic sense -- why spend $60,000+ on a luxury car when a $12,000 Honda Fit would get you to your destinations just as effectively?
So why do expensive cars sell? Because they're cool. And cool is something that Tesla's cars have, in spades.
Imagine what will happen to electricity costs during peak usage when everyone runs AC AND charges electric cars at the same time!
Okay, I'm imagining a lot of people switching to charging their cars at night, and running the AC during the day.
The product of a PhD who quit education to run a yarn store, marrying a crypto chip designer. You get a yarn store POS that's actually secure.
I feel compelled to ask if the code uses a lot of threads...
Most users don't care. Most users wouldn't care that their keyboard COULD be logged, even if they were told. MOST users are using wireless keyboards to type twitter and facebook posts.
They also use those same keyboards to log in to their bank accounts, so they'll care after the first time their checking account gets drained. (And for those that don't use on-line banking, they'll care after the first time their Facebook account starts posting goatse pics for their mom to see)
As if having to replace keyboard-batteries every 6 months wasn't reason enough. Is there really any benefit to having a keyboard be wireless, outside of a living room TV/PC scenario?
Presumably that's why there is a market for used cars. I don't see a problem here.
Nope. 120K miles on my Prius and the battery is as good as new. Try again.
I'm not sure a Prius is a valid comparison; a Prius never has to drain (or fully charge) its battery fully because it can always switch over to gasoline. That means there's a lot less stress on the Prius's battery than there would be in an electric-only vehicle.
(It will be more interesting to find out how a Model S's or a Leaf's batteries are doing when they reach 120K or 200K miles)
That's a niche product, so there are few producers of that stuff. Why would you expect to find stock at different prices unless there's something wrong with it? They don't produce a lot of excess stock.
It's more than just a result of being "niche" -- the same thing happens with Apple products. In order to become an authorized resaler, the stores have to sign an agreement to only sell the products at the manufacturer-specified price. It's done to prevent dealers from getting into price wars with each other, but by the same token it means that the consumer can't get a better deal by shopping around.
Traditional dealerships make their living on repairs/maintenance and electric cars just don't require that much of either.
Don't worry, I have faith that GM will come up with a solution to that problem shortly. It's what they do.
Because that would give information to a potential attacker! You don't make security problems easy to diagnose!
Security through obscurity, eh?
No thanks. Either the system is secure (even against an expert hacker), and therefore no security is lost by providing informative error messages.... or the system is insecure, in which case no security is gained by making the error messages hard to understand.
Deliberately obfuscating error messages only makes the system harder to use by its legitimate users (and therefore more likely to be bypassed in ways that compromise security) while doing nothing to keep hackers out.
What use are those characters anyway? You don't need funny accents on letters to play Nethack.
For more terrifying monster types, of course. You haven't really battled a Chinese dragon until you've done it using the original Han character set.
It's wrong to kill people, if you do so, we will execute you. (Slashdot is quite US centric and the US still uses the death penalty.)
I'm against the death penalty myself, but the above is an oversimplification. The actual policy is more like "It's wrong to murder people, if you do so, we will put you to trial, and if you're found guilty by a jury of your peers, and all of your subsequent appeals are denied, then you may be executed".
The key distinction being the (alleged) operation of due process and rule of law leading up to an execution, as opposed to the ad-hoc extrajudicial killing in the case of an individual committing murder.
Unless you observe the distinction between what the law is allowed to do vs what an individual is allowed to do, the logic fails under its own weight. For example, you could use the same construction to accuse the US of hypocrisy for uncontroversial practices: "it's wrong to kidnap people and keep them in a cage; if you do so, we will imprison you", or "it's wrong to take money from people against their will; if you do so, we will make you pay a fine"
Include the synthesis of fossil fuels and food from atmospheric CO2, and that will make burning fossil fuels and breathing carbon neutral.
Well, it would, if we could synthesize enough fossil fuel and/or food from atmospheric CO2 to equal the amount being pumped out of the ground. However, unless/until we make some really impressive engineering breakthroughs, we do not and cannot do that. (Not that it isn't a worthy goal -- if we could do that, we likely wouldn't have to pull fossil fuels out of the ground anymore)
This way burning fossil fuels is also carbon neutral - by adding the million year old synthesis into the cycle..
It's the digging up of fossil fuels from underground that is the problem. Carbon levels in the biosphere would remain static without that.
Note that when you breathe, it doesn't require you dig anything out of the ground to do it.
By fucking them over in the long run.
Not intentionally, of course -- global warming was/is an unintended side effect of digging up fossil fuels. If the atmosphere was "sufficiently large" to absorb all of the exhaust without consequences (as was initially assumed), we wouldn't have a problem -- but it isn't, and so we do.
I think the underlying problem (of which global warming is just one specific case) is that we are approaching the limits of planet's resources. The closer we get to those limits, the more constrained we get, because the consequences of our actions get reflected back at us more quickly and more forcefully.
In the long run, there are only two solutions: acquire more resources (off-planet?) or reduce resource usage (by some combination of population control and resource conservation).
Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"
