The audience identifies with the genre, which stands in contrast to genericized genres.
I'm pretty sure that fans of any genre of music think that their genre is special and that all the other genres are homogenous and generic. This is not something special about heavy metal. To paraphrase Tyler Durden, heavy metal is not a beautiful or unique snowflake.
Building an exascale computer is all well and good, but we still have to find a way to power the damn thing. How will we generate the necessary 1.21 jiggawatts?
Computers are ESD sensitive, after all, so lightning is right out. Perhaps a stainless steel frame would help with the flux dispersal...
I have a Hero Jr. and two different models of Armatron. For purposes of this poll, the Hero Jr. probably counts, but what about the two Armatrons? Neither has any computer in them at all, being purely electromechanical in nature and dumb as a bag of hammers. So do I pick option #3 or option #4?
Then again, this is Slashdot, so...option #4 it is. <click>
When you ban something, something else will inevitably replace it, and it may end up being worse than what you banned. What I've noticed is that when "partially hydrogenated" (i.e. trans-fats) vanishes from ingredients lists, it's usually replaced by "TBHQ", which is a preservative used to prevent fats from oxidizing. Partially hydrogenated fats are less prone to oxidizing, so when you remove that option they have to replace it with something else, and TBHQ seems to be the cheapest option.
The problem is that TBHQ has its own down sides. Five grams of it is allegedly lethal, and some people can't tolerate even small amounts of it. I am one of them. When I eat even a small amount of food with TBHQ in it, I get panic attacks or worse. In one case my pulse went up to around 240. Since then I've had to be very careful to avoid anything with TBHQ in it, but all these anti-trans-fat extremists pushing regulations for my health don't take into account that they may be killing me by taking away the foods I can eat without winding up in an emergency room.
In short, people know their own situation better than central planners do, and they may have personal issues that make the lack of trans-fats even worse than the presence of trans-fats. Regulating them institutes a form of tyranny of the majority. It's analogous to forcing someone with a peanut allergy to eat peanuts because they're so nutritious and because most people aren't allergic. Don't do that. Instead, just label foods accurately and let people make their own decisions.
I've we're going to be ridiculously nerdy and arbitrary we could all just just use seconds since the start of 1970.
Ah, but the start of 1970 in which timezone?
Because *IF* it can be developed, someone will eventually develop it, and probably sooner rather than later. Technological advances depend less on creative genius and more on previous technological advances. It's like how radar was developed simultaneously by about a half-dozen different nations, but they were all trying to keep this supposed strategic advantage secret from one another. It's not that it was a coincidence, but rather that the time was right, and the pieces were all in place.
Isn't it better to develop a quantum computer first, so that you know to stop using vulnerable forms of cryptography? Anything else is just sticking your head in the sand. Failing to develop it yourself will not stop the other guy from doing it.
"Most driving" could mean "most vehicles" or "most passengers". For example, if there are 2 human-driven cars and 1 computer-driven bus, then most vehicular passengers are being driven by a computer, yet most passenger vehicles are being driven by a human.
Such an ambiguously worded question deserves an equally ambiguous answer: "Quite a few years from now."
This is just an example of Washington Monument Syndrome , wherein the government (or a branch of it), when faced with budget cuts, first shuts down whatever site or service will cause the most uproar. Never mind the graft, never mind the mountains of wasteful spending, just cut funding to fire departments, schools, police, whatever will get noticed and inspire outrage the fastest. The idea is to apply pressure to the taxpayers, the budget office, the ways and means committee, or whoever else is capable of deciding that they should get more money. They do this every single time.
It's exactly the same as a petulant child who, upon being told that he can only have two pieces of candy instead of five, holds his breath and stomps his feet in an effort to reverse the decision. And it's equally mature.