Easy detection method #48:
(1) Send out a large electromagnetic pulse
(2) If it falls out of the sky, it was a drone
Easy detection method #48:
(1) Send out a large electromagnetic pulse
(2) If it falls out of the sky, it was a drone
The main advantage of AC, is that it was easier to step from one voltage to another using transformers, a technology from the 1800s. With modern solid state DC to DC converters, that is no longer an issue.
Do you know what the most efficient switch is for voltages over a kilovolt? I'll give you a hint: it's not based on semiconductors. Especially for high power. There's this little matter of "breakdown voltage," for one. Also "channel resistance." When someone comes up with a transistor  that can do three-nines  voltage conversion, we can talk.
 And bear in mind that I spent forty years making a good living from the little darlin's. I just don't hold illusions about 'em.
 Check the losses that power-station transformers tolerate while doing conversions on megawatts. Those suckers get effficient.
They talk about how it's a stability release, but if you are going to compile your application with the newer dev tools you are going to have to do some work adapting to the iOS style permission model.
I'm really glad to see Android adopted this model, the previous model made no sense from any standpoint - it was worse for the users, and worse for security. Now that Android will ask for permission when you actually want to use some protected resource, they can make a way more informed choice if they should allow it or not - and on the fly decide an app can access some things and not others (say allowing Contacts but not location).
It's just a shame the older style permission model will be supported for some time to come, as it greatly eases the ability of spyware to operate on Android.
can you think of an example of two countries profiting off mutual trade that went to war?
Generally there is an economic element to war. Often one side or both will put economic pressure on the other by attempting to isolate it from trade or charge the other some kind of mark up because they can. And generally this is one of the primary causes of war.
I can cite examples as far back as the Trojan war. I believe it was mostly over copper. I'd have to check.
That said, the Chinese are pushing for expanded territorial waters and the US is attempting to cut that back. So that is something. But war? Over "that"? Possible I suppose but it would be idiocy. China's expansion of territory isn't going to profit the state or society much and they risk a great deal by doing that. For the united states... again, there is dubious value in pushing the chinese one way or the other. We'd perhaps lose some prestige with our asian allies. But I'm not sure what that is ultimately worth to us. On the downside, a war with china could be horrific... so it is in both our interests to avoid that.
The chinese apparently want to play chicken with the US on that. I'm not sure of the best way to play that game assuming we even want to do it. I'm sure there is an optimal strategy in diplomatic chicken.
but I like dark chocolate.
I also like broccoli as well
We battled the soviets because they were a national security threat.
The chinese and americans make too much money off each other to go to war with each other.
Look, Neil... on slashdot of course we all want to go to space. We're a tech community and we like all that space shit.
But a lot of people don't. I had a high school teacher that had a big sticker on his wall that said "no space cadets"... and he was talking about the space program and how he thought it was a waste of money. He wanted to spend it all on social programs.
that is just the general public. What we need to do is take it out of the politician's hands. the government is if anything backsliding on space. The future is private space exploration. it is going to be different than what the government was doing but if they can actually figure out how to make money up there then there will be an explosion of development that will never stop.
As to mad max 1, the director is on record saying that it was not post or pre apocalyptic. It was just a dumb action movie he made and he didn't have any context for it.
As to fury road as a reboot of other stories...the only part of fury road that was like the road warrior was the battle over the truck. Nothing else was similar.
Most of the plot elements were about those three communities. The water town, the bullet town, and the gas town. They exchanged water for bullets and gas. That was what that tanker was for.
The story was odd because all the powerful people in it were mutants. The leader of water town was covered in weird boils and nodules. The leader of gas town had elephantiasis of the feet. And the leader of bullet town probably had something going on with him.
Compare that to the main bad guy in road warrior. His face was burned. That was it. His body was fine. He wasn't a mutant. He was buff. Very healthy.
And his gang didn't really have a credo. They were just savages. I think my main problem with Fury road was that they had this whole culture and credo in these towns that wasn't credible.
You have to keep in mind that mad max was alive before civilization fell. I mean... he doesn't look that old right? So how many generations of weirdos could this guy be breeding in the desert in the span of perhaps a decade? Not even one.
The plot and the script was shit.
I like the franchise. I just wish they'd have made it more like the road warrior.
Camp with oil besieged by band of savages. Man looks down upon them in his leather jacket from his muscle car. That was the plot background for road warrior. They had some narration about gas running out and war breaking out. That was it.
What do you know about the band of savages? Dick.
What do you know about the people in the camp?
It isn't explained because it doesn't matter. They're just people. Survivors from the fall of civilization.
Because I have a point and my insults are a conclusion derrived from analyzing what someone else said... yep. I am superior.
Look, if someone says something stupid... and you go through that and show it to be stupid... and then call them stupid for saying that... that isn't unreasonable.
If you instead say a given argument is wrong because someone else is stupid that is just ad hominem and is not constructive.
As to peppering a post with insults that don't actually have anything to do with the central argument... that IS immaturity.
Do you see the differences?
Details matter. Context matters. In one context I can stab you in the face and be considered a hero. In another were I to do the same thing I would be considered a maniac and thrown in prison. In others my moral and legal position could be ambiguous.
The context in which things are done is obviously relevant.
I know this... because I'm not a child.
Did you see what I did there? Notice how the insult came as a conclusion to an argument. That is almost always what I do when I level insults at all.
I generally only do it when someone else is disrespecting me. If you're JUST stupid, then I'll probably humor you for awhile and try to be polite for as long as I can. But often as not, people will open with an insult and THEN say stupid things.
And that means I get to take the gloves off and just rhetorically fuck them up to the extent it amuses me.
Be nice and respectful to me and I'll almost always be nice and respectful to you. The only exception would be if you are being exceptionally stupid and are not productively engaging in a meaningful dialog.
I do not need you to agree with me. But if you can't even have a basic conversation because you're just too stupid to do it, then I'm going to call you stupid at some point. That isn't an insult in that context... that is... like someone calling you short or weak because you can't open that jar of mayonnaise. It isn't an insult in that case... it is me realizing that a given person is mentally incapable of having the discussion I'm attempting to have with them.
In any case... as should be more than obvious to even the most limited of mentalities... I'm not myself stupid. Rude? Perhaps. But not stupid... and as to maturity? That is a question that relies on an understanding of moral and ethical and cultural norms that you can't presume.
In my culture, I am not immature. YOUR culture might see it that way. But why exactly do I care?
Nope. I get where I'm going as fast as anyone. I just don't burn my breaks out or rear end people because I'm stupid.
And as to your lack of knowledge about manual transmissions... You see the same behavior with all the manual transmissions on the road. I'm not alone out there. Lots of cars don't automatically accelerate when the traffic opens up for a minute because it serves no purpose. you're going too fast when that happens and it forces everyone to come to a halt over and over and over again.
You avoid that by just going the average speed of the road.
But you know what... I don't really need you to agree with me. I'm okay with you being wrong.
Oh? So you have the source code? Snicker snort.
Your ignorance is no laughing matter.
Because of how easy Objective-C is to pull compilable headers, and how easy it is to extend any class and override any method (swizzling), you have everything you need to change ANY app or system process even though you don't have all the original source code. It's lots more powerful than just having source code for the OS and not apps...
Its' really too bad you can't understand how much more powerful this is to actual hackers.
Or Google has been resisting the NSA a little too much.
It's pretty obvious that this is a punishment for adding encryption to Android devices, and for going to SSL for all web transactions, making it much more difficult to spy, despite administrative objections.
The recommendation is clearly punitive because Google has pissed the executive off, and consistently opted on the side of data protection, and has disclosed many of the recently discovered OpenSSL and SSSL protocol flaws which made eavesdropping easier.
There are still a LOT of non-smartphone owners, they would be considered switchers too.
The Tesla Powerwall IS not that big of a deal and not the solution for Solar!
The 10kwh Powerwall is only good for 50 cycles a year! It is more of a house size UPS. The 7 will work for daily use but it is more expensive per kwh than the 10 and even Solar City is not going to sell the 7.
The Tesla power wall battery still sucks. It does suck less than other battery packs but only a little. The big improvment is one of packaging and frankly hype.
I know that this is going to go counter to the Church of Tesla's teachings but even the Model S really does not count. It is a 100K car for the very rich. Another fact is the simple truth that the Tesla car company is not successful car company yet. It has yet to make a profit.
No we do not need to move to low voltage wiring in our homes because of the "success" of the Powerwall. The Powerwall is the the solution to the solar production/demand problem. And frankly in most homes the biggest power users are things like AC, Hot water heaters, dryers, stoves, refrigerators, and so on. All of which work just fine on AC and I for one do not want to have to have a bus bar the size of my arm running to my dryer so it can work on 12 volts.
I agree - the post wasn't in support of traditional publishing - but in this case they helped authors who weren't in their stable as well; I doubt the criminals only ripped off writers from large publishing houses.
A consultant is a person who borrows your watch, tells you what time it is, pockets the watch, and sends you a bill for it.