Comment Re:Do We Want Our Gov't to regulate the drones? (Score 1) 94
Governments typically hate competition. Too many drones will spoil it for everybody^Hthe three letter agencies.
Governments typically hate competition. Too many drones will spoil it for everybody^Hthe three letter agencies.
Oh look! A radionuclide! Run Away! Run Away!
Exactly how long do you want You Tube videos to be anyway?
Why do you hate America?
Pretty much this.
TL;DR, careful what you ask for, you might get it and peaceful conflict resolution always beats the alternative.
Well, it does say "Science Blog - Straight from the Source". So what were you expecting?
And, like everyone else, I can't make heads or tails out of it either, but at least your source has a cool picture.
No, this is just Microsoft's Marketing Move of The Month. They change marketing strategies faster than Miley Cyrus changes clothes.
Human beings are flawed, even scientists. People pursue agendas and that which will make them both money and garner attention. The problem is that group think impacts scientists every bit as much as any other profession. The question is, how can we verify science when most of the population don't even understand it? Much like politicians and covert policy, the public has to trust experts in their fields. With so little oversight what can we do?
Science is, eventually, self correcting. It may take months (in this case), decades (cf, Plate Tectonics) or hundreds of years (the nonsense spouted by Pliny and Aristotle). There are probably large swaths of what we take for scientific understanding that are still wrong (or not even wrong). But there is a self correcting mechanism. In this, Science is rather unique among human endeavors.
That dumb people breed like bacteria? Last time I checked that was still in effect.
If intelligence was hereditary, it should be trivial to point to a family of increasingly intelligent people who should reach their pinnacle about today.
Just after Sarah Palin had me convinced it's some kind of hair growth medium...
So you're
You can imagine lots of things (and please, keep it to yourself). Whether or not you would be correct is another thing.
No, you're not correct in this instance. It's complicated
OK folks, you heard it here first.
Slashdot. Ahead of everybody, all of the time.
Just ask us.
I ran zfs on freebsd for a few years but gave up on it. at one time, I did a cvsup (like an apt-get update, sort of, on bsd) and it updated zfs code, updated a disk format encoding but you could not revert it! if I had to boot an older version of the o/s (like, before the cvsup) the disk was not readable! that was a showstopper for me and a design style that I object to, VERY MUCH. makes support a nightmare.
I've never seen this in linux with jfs, xfs, ext*fs, even reiser (remember that?) never screwed me like this before.
the system also was very ram hungry and cpu hungry.
I'm still not convinced its good for anything but serious users who have a GOOD backup/restore plan. updating a disk image format and not allowing n-1 version of o/s to read it is a huge design mistake and I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind it, but until that is changed, I won't run zfs.
THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE
