Nah, Plus Photos needs an insane frenetic unusable landing page like Hangouts and then only ten percent of the features of Picasa, so they can go ahead and kill Picasa and then kill Plus Photos in two years when nobody uses it.
First there were Picasa Web Albums. Last year my albums got moved to my Google+ account. Now there is a new branding coming along.. My albums will be moved to another service once again.
You can still access your albums via picasaweb.google.com (picasa.com directs to a download without any links to get you to your albums). It's much more flexible and has more options than Google+ (particularly when it comes to album management). I've just continued to use picasaweb for my albums (there's a Lightroom extension which automatically uploads my photos to it). I've just been using it as though my photos also happen to show up on Google+, not the other way around.
I suspect the "another service" they'll move it to is photos.google.com (redirects to plus.google.com/photos). They've already migrated the photo viewer in Android to a Photos app. As long as they keep the additional functionality that's on picasaweb, it won't make any difference to me what they call it nor what URL I have to use to get to it.
I've been inside NORAD, and it was not as high-tech as portrayed in War Games (1983).
Gah, extra police slipped in - must have been undercover!
I like it because it's infinitely extensible. Who polices the police police police? Police police police police police police police police police, of course.
Well, if you steadfastly refuse to explain your use of your pet phrase "formal specification language", you'll continue to fail to communicate. Whatever point you're trying to make, no one here outside your head is getting it.
That's pretty much it. I don't have much faith in the future of chemical-battery-powered cars, but regardless it will eventually be something that starts with electricity. Meanwhile, gradually moving off of coal power seems a no-brainer. Rushing to do so would be foolish, causing needless economic disruption, but over decades as existing power stations hit normal replacement cycles? Coal needs to go.
Wow, way to go Slashcode! OK, here's the same post hopefully without the mangling:
And the "dirty coal" argument is a load of horseshit. Come out from behind your cloak of cowardly anonymity & we'll debate.
Not the AC, but here's an argument for you. If you care whether a car is green* in the first place, you're probably a hipster, and thus should die in a fire. Despite sensational news stories, you're probably less likely to die in a fire in a Tesla than a gas powered car. Therefore, the Tesla is not really a green car.
*I miss cars that are the actual color green. It's really hard to find luxury cars these days in anything but neutral colors (when times are tough, people choose attention-diverting instead of attention-getting colors for expensive stuff). That's a shame, I love colorful cars. The Model S has a great red available though - good for Tesla!
And the "dirty coal" argument is a load of horseshit. Come out from behind your cloak of cowardly anonymity & we'll debate.
Not the ACless likely to die in a fire in a Tesla than a gas powered car. Therefore, the Tesla is not really a green car.
*I miss cars that are the actual color green. It's really hard to find luxury cars these days in anything but neutral colors (when times are tough, people choose attention-diverting instead of attention-getting colors for expensive stuff). That's a shame, I love colorful cars. The Model S has a great red available though - good for Tesla!
BMW is only marginally a luxury car. You get less luxury at a given price than most other car companies, as their focus is on performance and that means reducing weight.
If the commodities exchanges aren't "free markets", the term is meaningless. "Free market" does not mean unregulated - never has except in strawmen - it means the government isn't mucking with pricing, nor giving preference to some buyers or sellers.
"Capitalism" only means that you can aquire the means of production by spending money, instead of by political influence, military adventure, or the like.
Understanding implies the ability to explain ones position, not merely assert it. You come off like those clowns who go on about proofs of program correctness, but perhaps that's a mistaken impression
Can you give an example of a formal language spec? Are you talking about an actual set of formal transforms to object code or somesuch?
BTW, set-ups like a C compiler written in C are very much in line with Godel statements. There certainly exists source code for which the question "does this compiler compile this source code correctly" cannot have a useful answer as a formal proof (and the examples easiest to contrive would include the compiler itself in said source code).
Try keeping that distance without driving significantly slower than the flow of traffic - unless people pulling in front of you is rare, you can't. Driving at the wrong speed, especially in "bumper to bumper at 70 MPH" traffic creates a significant traffic hazard.
People are a horrendous judge of risk vs reward, especially on the road.
No joke. The primary reason for traffic slowdowns on these highways was rear-end collisions blocking traffic. I'm quite sure that net average travel time was longer because of traffic moving too fast, when you average in the accident delays.
Pave enough lanes and all these problems go away, but people have even worse judgment when it comes to building infrastructure for some reason.
Ah, you don't get it - I'm guessing you drive someplace more sane. You cannot leave a safe following distance ahead under some traffic conditions. You could try, but there will be a continuous stream of cars pulling into the space you're trying to leave in front of you, and if you slow by too much to try to maintain that space, now you've become a hazard to navigation, endangering everyone else.
. Lane following is simple in that it uses two painted lines to figure out where the lane is and steers to stay between the lines.
My car does much better than that. I've been surprised at how little visual information it needs to determine where the lane is. I does sometimes get confused by zebra crossings, however. It doesn't brake for curves, but it does look ahead and understand curves - if the car "ahead" of me is actually in a different lane, for example, it figures that out and doesn't panic (the first gen system from 10 years ago had problems with that).
Say you approaching a narrow bridge. The bridge has to be identified. How can you identify a bridge if all the information you have is the position of the left side of the lane, the position of the right side of the lane and the distance to the vehicle in front of you?
My car has a variety of sensors, including a camera built into the rearview mirror assembly (so, better visibility than my eyes). It lacks the software to deal with e.g. sharp curves ahead, but the raw data is already available.
It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.
