Yea i don't get this idea, it absolutely crazy. While I'm sure security experts are going to say why this is a bad idea from the start, at least make it an easy opt out, not some crazy way to not do it.

Well, the things that I tend to do most often is make my own tools for fairly specific tasks. One of my greatest eureka moments was when I realised that I can 3D print my own tool to open a watch case. It took a few iterations (plastic after all is weak), but I finally hit on something that's reliable enough, and it won't scratch the watch case. This was all because I took it in some years ago for a battery change, and the person kind of made a mess of trying to open it, they bent a strap pin, put tears in the leather strap, and scratched the case back. Fortunately it was my cheap daily watch, but still, I got paranoid after that, and had no intention of going to that person again. Now, I save a few dollars by buying my own batteries, and they're good brand ones too, and use a plastic tool to open the watch. No chance of marking it.

The point isn't so much that 3D printing is awesome, but it's really great when you realise that with this tool (3D printer that is) I can do things which I previously would never do. I'd never consider making a tool before unless it could be made with sheet metal and a hammer and file, and in some ways, the tool I made is better than one I could buy.

Anandtech claimed that the 980Ti is 97% of the Titan X. Apart from the difference in vram (which is hardly important at the moment, and by the time it will be important, the graphics core will be inadequate), there really is no reason to look at the titan anymore.

I'm still using a T43. Never upgraded because with each subsequent model, the laptops started to lose just about all the features that made thinkpads special, such as the lid latches, thinklight (which shines slightly to the side of the keyboard to light up pperwork you might have next to it), superior keyboard layout. 16:10 resolution is also one thing which is far better than 16:9, certainly when you consider that it's meant to be for 'those who do'.

I remember reading that there was an internal memo in lenovo, one or two years ago, about how they were worried about losing so much of the business market to apple. I can't help but think that they've been losing business sales with the consecutive feature drops. I still find it crazy that they dropped the trackpoint buttons, and glad to see that they brought them back so quickly when they realised that people actually do want buttons. While some aspects of this announcement are interesting, others are a bit too nostalgic. Classic thinkpads have always been function over form, hopefully they don't lose sight of this by adding silly amounts of leds or skimping on quality, furthermore, that colourful thinkpad logo needs a complete rethink, also the renders are missing forward and back keys on the keyboard, that needs to be corrected.

With that said, I definitely need an upgrade, my T43 is quite tired, battery life is poor and I really do want to get something which functions as well, just with modern hardware and excellent battery life. I most certainly get one, more if it's unfortunately a one off model.

Sydney is similar. But the thing is dead reckoning, while not perfect due to cumulative error, will generally be able to resolve changes such as a train accelerating and braking. It would also be relatively straight forward to see that a person is moving along a train corridor, so they could make fairly easy assumptions.

What could potentially break tracking through accelerometer dead reckoning is by moving the phone around in the pocket and changing its orientation. But even that, could be potentially resolved, as I believe all phone accelerometers these days are six axis devices, so they can measure static rotation.

The problems are complex, because no doubt, some people really are quite proud of their contributions, and any editing or wholesale discarding of their work will no doubt be offensive to them. Having read some discussion pages, I could see that some people get really protective of their 'baby'. That means it would be better to be more diplomatic and if someone has made an entry, it would possibly be better to edit or adding to their work rather than rewriting it. But with that said, it's basically sacrificing accuracy and quality in order to keep some insignificant person on the internet, happy, that is unless the person who wants to 'correct' anything is actually making it worse.

Then there are some articles, which I've read, that I know that they really do need a complete rewrite, as the whole structure isn't bad, it's awful, it reads like a below average school research project where everything is just cut and pasted, and absolutely no effort has been made in thinking about the article as a whole. You know there's a problem when you go to an article to get information, and your meager knowledge is sufficient to identify that the content in the article is even worse...

I like using wikipedia as a precursory look into something, but I know full well that controversial topics are usually internet warzones, there's a lot of historical revisionism, various forms of patriotism/nationalism that tries to slant outlooks, there's loads of bias, even on seemingly noncontroversial things, as such, I've seen enough poorly written articles to know that wikipedia needs to be read sceptically. Any student who references wikipedia should be immediately given a 0, as it isn't an authoritative source, but they should also be taught how to verify things, and how to better identify bias or slanted writing and even poor writing, taking into consideration that everyone will still use the site.

I've had that problem from my first and only attempt to "contribute" to wikipedia. The idea is a good one, but it's seriously flawed in its application when some mug can moderate information when they haven't the slightest clue of the topic. I once tried to add information on an Australian manufactured car, and unfortunately some person from the USA took exception to certain comments, I was new, so didn't follow procedure, but when I provided books as my sources, rather than web pages, they still wouldn't back down. I couldn't be bothered arguing so just let the reverts happen and just washed my hands of ever trying to contribute to wikipedia ever again.

Nothing described there is outside the ability of current CNC technology in the context of additive manufacturing (i.e. 3D printing). This is what perplexes me with the announcement. As someone who has a 3D printer, and designs my own trinkets in CAD to make, I can't understand what exactly are they talking about? From what I can piece together, they want to replace the CNC system, which has been around for over 60 years, with a new setup. I sceptical as to why as well.

To give you a brief rundown of what gcode is, it's a set of coordinate instructions and other codes which are a simple way of instructing the machine. The whole idea is that you aren't running machine code, but rather a simplified code where the machine software then translates into manipulations of the machine. Coordinates are the main instructions which tell the machine where to move its tool head, spindle, or extruding head, but there are other codes for more complex machines to change tools, change materials, do custom functions, which are usually machine specific. Gcode can easily be written by hand. It's not fun for complex things, and for additive manufacture, it's much longer. Making honey comb, it's easy, you just program the machine to do it. It's a matter for the process or machine that determine the limitations, but the software/code side has never been the problem. It also follows the GIGO principle.

As someone with a 3D printer, I can't understand what this is meant to do?

I've never had a failure on the software side with 3D printing, from using CAD to design something, then a slicer program to setup how I want my printer to work, and produce the gcode. There's trial and error in this stage, learning how to do it, but it's just part and parcel of the technology, it's early days, and trying to automate this would drastically complicate the machines.

If this intends to replace gcode, which essentially makes current 3D printers CNC machines, then this won't catch on. Gcode is just far too engrained in manufacturing for it to be changed. The brilliant thing about gcode is you can write it out by hand, meaning, that once an automated solution works through it, it's really easy to tweak it and improve it by hand. Maybe this low level application is over the top for many people, but there's plenty of stuff where I never had to worry about doing any tweaking.

I suppose, while not ideal, that's how it should be, and largely is. No doubt why many rape allegations go nowhere.

We're a country which still bans games (hotline miami 2 was recently banned). The games industry here never became anything large anyway, and we're way too far away from the game hubs. All that ends up happening here is that we spend a lot of money on games, often times, paying well above what other regions do. The government couldn't care less about games or the industry (as long as we aren't playing games that are considered bad) as the age groups that play games, aren't big enough. We have a lot of baby boomers, and they're running the country.

There's a word limit? Dang it

Basically the police don't deal with children properly. My thinking is that universities could essentially have people help the victim by mediate their interaction with the police. But stepping in and making decisions on criminal matters doesn't help at all.

When rape allegations make the media, it's either because some important people are being protected, and hopefully the media is shaming corruption in the system, or it's because the accuser wants a trial by media and let the circus in, actively avoiding a police investigation.

Well the problem isn't going to get resolved through attempting to force mob justice or having extrajudicial proceedings. Just how is getting university administration getting involved going to solve the problem of something which is a criminal matter? It seems to me that the desired outcome is to achieve guilt by accusation alone. No rule of law, no fair trial and most of all, no testing of evidence.

I believe rape is a heinous crime. I think that it is wrong if police don't treat every individual matter with seriousness. Maybe certain procedures need to be adjusted, but if that happens, then the false allegations of rape also need to be treated seriously, and there have been news reports of women being sent to jail for a few years, because they were proven to have made up false rape allegations.

I know that usually the response from police can be very poor. I have no first hand experience, but I have spoken to a primary school principal who has the unpleasantries of dealing with issues of children being molested or raped, when the school learns of it (if the school finds out about a child being abused outside of school, it's still their duty of care to report it) police come in and they just don't know how to deal with children, dealing in legalese to

The problem is this whole beat up about campus rapes is blown way out of proportion. Case in point is the mattress carrying student, who now appears to just have been a woman scorned. So any systems are already being abused. If there's criminality going on, the only thing to do is go to the police. Police need to treat rape seriously, they generally do, but I get the feeling why certain people want this resolved outside police is because police will also treat fraudulent allegations of rape seriously.

Sadly, I am aware of that.