Spike strips require the police to be able to predict where the runner is going to go, for the runner to not steer around them, and for the runner to not keep going despite a flat. They're also not exactly safe.
A reader with e-ink does not have this problem.
I would change that to say may not have that problem. I borrowed an older Kindle from a friend a few months ago to evaluate and read several chapters of A Song of Ice and Fire on it, and I wasn't impressed. I mean it was pretty nice, but I still prefer physical books over it. The contrast on the Kindle was lower, and even though the screen isn't a glossy screen, it is still much more glossy than paper. The paperwhite he got to replace the one I borrowed seemed better, but it still had the gloss problem.
(And don't consider me some book snob; I actually do embarrassingly little pleasure reading.)
Without copyright, anybody with more time than money could disassemble, document, and distribute any proprietary fork of a program and turn binaries back into (assembly language) source code useful for cloning the added functionality in the Free branch.
Being involved in some work that's related to reverse engineering (though I guess unrelated enough that I've never actually tried to do that really), my suspicion is that in most cases, it would be easier to re-implement from scratch whatever functionality you wanted than it would be to reverse engineer an existing binary (at least for your typical C or C++ optimized, stripped binary). Thethe main exception to that would be if you were doing something for compatibility or such and didn't even really know what it was doing in the first place... but most of the time if you said "hey, that feature is a really neat idea, I wish the open version had that", I don't think it'd be worth it.
That's even worse, but not really what I was getting at.
What I was saying through rhetorical questions was that even if you test two cars back-to-back and the first gets a 5.3 and the second gets a 5.4, it's still almost certainly a huge stretch for the manufacturer of the 5.4 to start running about telling everyone that they're the safest car on the road, because
So it had the best overall test score
.. but is not necessarily the safest. But the test is on safety. So it's the best in safety.. but not necessarily the best in safety.
And of course, tests perfectly reflect reality, and as such the Tesla's 5.4 score means it's definitely safer than some car that got a 5.35 or something. Uh huh.
The Tesla is pretty damn safe, but saying "it's the safest car ever tested" can't be supported, and if I were the NHTSA, I wouldn't want people implying that I said it was (even though Tesla chose their words carefully).
So... it's a technical dispute over bureaucratic assholery.
To play devil's advocate for a second, measurements like the safety ratings inherently have error to them. For something like car safety, is a 5.4 really better than a 5.3, or was that just a quirk of the particular tests they did, and the 5.3 would be safer on the road?
Look at it from the NHTSA's perspective: if you think that Tesla's advertising is making claims that aren't particularly supportable because of margins of error like that and they're using your data to do it (and in the process saying essentially "NHTSA says we're the safest car on the road" when you don't want to make that claim), I think you'd be well within the realm of reasonableness to make them stop it.
Also, I recall this claim / story being about 3 months old at this point, and I believe NHTSA complained around the same time. Is slashdot seriously that far behind, or (as I suspect) is this an attempt to generate additional controversy and angst due to the other Tesla stories in the news?
Neither. (Well, it could be the latter.)
Rather, it is new action by NHTSA. "Complaining" is a lot different from saying "we will stop accrediting your cars". The former is old news. The latter is, well, news. (The "guidelines" were released yesterday.)
A society that only satisfies the lowest common denominator is no society I'd want to live in. foobar is targeted at digital audio fans
I'm not saying that software should satisfy only the lowest common denominator, just that I suspect 150K files is a pretty severe abnormality even among music fans who love piracy. Personally, I very briefly tried foobar2k, and didn't feel like putting in the effort to figure out how to make it do what I want, so I just use other programs. And on normal-sized collections, they work plenty fine.
I really get utterly disgusted when manufacturers imply that their ridiculously expensive space heater uses less power than others, talking about being ultra-efficient (just like ALL THE REST) and lowering heating bills, in order to bilk the unsuspecting out of $400 for a $15 space heater.
My impression is that this is actually somewhat plausible (if a bit of market nonsense about "ultra-efficient", as if you could make one that isn't) in the sense that if you have a space heater, you can heat just the area you're in to a comfortable temperature and leave the rest of your home at a cooler temperature, saving energy there. If you've got electric heat this seems almost certain to work, otherwise I have no idea hot the numbers look and how much cheaper gas or other forms of heating typically are.
There are still a ton that don't toward the lower end of the price ranges for the corresponding size. I actually just bought a new TV myself -- and this is a $1K, 60" TV, so while it's pretty inexpensive for its size it's not a cheap television in a more absolute sense -- and I'm pretty sure it has nothing of that sort of feature.
s/keep/buy/ and you'll have it right.
I'd love a Tesla for round-the-city driving, don't get me wrong, but 300 miles is an awfully generous; that's in ideal weather (warm enough the batteries don't suffer and cool enough you can get away without A/C) and at 55mph. Who the hell drives long distances at 55 mph? I'm sure some people do, but most people who have to go that distance are able and choose to take an interstate and go much faster.
It's not at all hard to get to get an estimate of a maximum range of around 180 miles in poor but realistic situations. The worst their calculator supports is 65mph at 32 degrees with the heater on, and there it's 218 mph. What would it get if it was 20 degrees and you were going at 70 (like the speed limit on the Indiana and Ohio turnpikes)?
Actually I don't think my "counterexample" argument holds, because there would actually still be a sequence point at each call. You could change it to:
volitile int x1, x2, x3, xy;
f( (x1=1) + (x2 = 1), (x3 = 1) + (x4 = 1) );
and the order in which the writes to the xs occur could be any, including, for example, x1, x3, x2, x4.
Check Annex C: there is no sequence point between evaluation of arguments, only after evaluation of all of the arguments is complete. (Note that the comma separating arguments aren't a comma operator.)
In addition, the standard explicitly states that it is not necessary to completely evaluate one argument before moving onto the next: "The order of evaluation of the function designator, the actual arguments, and subexpressions within the actual arguments is unspeciïed, but there is a sequence point before the actual call" (126.96.36.199/10 of C99 draft). This means, for example, that f(g1() + g2(), g3() + g4()) could be evaluated by calling the g# functions in any order (as each is a subexpression within the actual arguments), and if those functions produced side effects then that would be a counterexample to your claim that there is a sequence point between arguments.
If it were just up to the order of evaluation of the function arguments, then it would be unspecified. However, the program also modifies the same object twice without an intervening sequence point, and that puts it into undefined behavior territory (6.5/2, C99 draft standard).