effective

        Except that hand sanitizers are only effective in quite limited subset of situations.

Now, if only I could find a liquid hand soap that doesn't contain moisturizers...

I would like to believe that the fact most hand soaps have moisturizers will decrease since it was always the fucking "antibacterial" agents which caused most of the skin damage in the first place.

If you'll kindly notice, from your own link, the model years being stolen always lag by a decade or more what' current. Exactly as I said.

Do you know the most popular stolen car is still 90s Hondas? Rarely do newer cars get stolen anymore.

90's Hondas weren't the most popular car to steal in the 90's. You're confusing the stolen car market (parts) with ease of theft. New cars aren't stolen at the same rate as older cars not because they are harder to steal, but because there demand isn't there for their parts.

Honda always tops the list not because Hondas are easier to steal, but because they are ubiquitous (thus probability is in their favor when it comes to the joyride market) and because the black market for parts (organized theft) needs more Honda parts than Mercedes.

Anyone can put up a web page, and Javascript and PHP have a large footprint there. (I guess Java, on the enterprise server side?) It's not hard to imagine there's lots of folks that have to deal with these languages as part of their larger duties, but aren't really trained as programmers in any traditional sense. That could fuel a bunch of StackOverflow traffic for sure...

Whichever ranking you look at will be skewed by the methodology. It feels like web-oriented languages are overemphasized in this cut.

Of course, my own worldview is skewed, too. I deal more with low-level hardware, OS interactions, etc. You won't find a lick of Javascript or PHP anywhere near any of the stuff I work on daily. Lots of C, C++, some Go and Python.

I don't see anything relevant there on page 17 of the thread you linked. Was there something in specific you're you're trying to point out?

Yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath on an under-manned RE GPU driver ever seeing the light of day.

We're beyond 4 years w/o commits.

A20 now has open source graphics driver? is it actually usable for accelerated graphics (composition in X) ?

No, there is no open source graphics driver for the A20's MALI. However the FSF will look the other way and grant an exception if the GPU is not used and graphics are processed on the CPU. This is what they have done with the one variant of the system they are having certified. They are selling (at least) two others which are not certified.

you confuse my beat-the-ignorant-over-the-head caps with anger.

1. The Iowa class battleship has a foot thick armor on the hull. WW2 ships used armor that was sometimes even thicker. Washington class had 16 inch armor for instance.

ARMOR BELT != HULL.

REGARDLESS YOU CLAIMED SUCH HULLS ARE COMMON, THEY DON'T EXIST, MUCH LESS COMMONLY. STOP TRYING TO BACKTRACK. HOW MUCH DID YOU PAY FOR THAT UID?

2. cargo ships conventionally have to have accommodations for people. The entire ship, other than the engine room(s), could be one big vault, with the entire top being a doorway to allow access to the interior, much like the old space shuttle. It would be no more difficult to load or unload than existing cargo ships.

15 PEOPLE AND THEIR LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS ARE AN INSIGNIFICANT CONSIDERATION IN AN INTERMODAL SHIP DESIGN.

DOORS WHICH OPEN LIKE THE SPACE SHUTTLE, YET ARE HUNDREDS OF FEET LONG AND 12" THICK WOULD BE AN ENGINEERING MARVEL, WOULD COST MORE THAN THE LOSS OF DOZENS OF PIRATE RAIDS, COST CARGO CAPACITY, AND PROTECT AGAINST A THREAT WHICH DOES NOT EXIST.

3. Presumably, there are reasons why they want to run autonomous ships in the first place. If it isn't profitable, obviously they won't do it. I was simply suggesting that looking at things from a perspective of ships that are always designed for accommodating at least a few human passengers may create limitations on what designs are practical, and if we drop those assumptions, other possibilities may surface.

HUMANS ON THE SHIP DOES NOT PREVENT ARMOR TODAY. FULL STOP. ARMOR DOES NOT EXIST BECAUSE IT PROTECTS AGAINST A NON THREAT.

4. Actually, I thought generally pirates made their money by robbing the people on the ship... but then I wasn't the one who initially suggested that these ships would be vulnerable to piracy. I was only proposing that it may be possible to mitigate such vulnerability, assuming it it were to exist in the first place, by incorporating design changes into such a vessel that would not be practical if the vessel needed to carry a human crew.

THEY TAKE HOSTAGES FOR RANSOM. SELLING 100,000 PAIRS OF NIKE SHOES IS NOT PRACTICAL WHEN YOU'RE RAIDING WITH SPEEDBOATS, NOR IS IT PROFITABLE EVEN IF YOU HAD CARGO ROOM. CHINA SHIPS TOILET PAPER TO THE US. TOILET PAPER.

4 - YOU SEEM TO BE UNDER THE FALSE BELIEF THAT STOLEN CARGO IS HOW PIRATES MAKE MONEY.

and like all the other concepts, you are mistaken, over and over and over, and over, and over.

1 - NOBODY HAS EVER HAD 12" THICK HULLS DESPITE YOUR CLAIM

2 - YOUR "VAULT" CONCEPT OF A CARGO SHIP IGNORES HOW CARGO SHIPS ARE LOADED AND UNLOADED.

3 - YOUR "SACRIFICE CARGO CAPACITY FOR ARMOR PLATING" CONCEPT IGNORES THE ECONOMICS OF THE FREIGHT INDUSTRY. THE NAME OF THE GAME IS VOLUME AND A SHIP WHICH CAN'T DELIVER THAT IS NOT PROFITABLE TODAY, AND A 15 MEMBER CREW ISN'T THE REASON.

"Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt. Neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur? Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit qui in ea voluptate velit esse quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum qui dolorem eum fugiat quo voluptas nulla pariatur?"

Not only did I never claim battleships and their ilk had 1" thick hulls, you're confusing the concept of hull thickness with armor belt thickness.

Unless you can learn to read this is the end.

Container ships, which is what we are talking about, do not and never have had anything within an order of magnitude of 12" hulls, despite your claims.

You're talking out of your ass now.

Oil tankers are on the order of 1" thick (per hull)

Armorer hulls never have approached 12" thick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

and you CONTINUE to ignore loading and unloading.

You mean a ship which is incapable of carrying 1/10th of the containers that a modern ship does? A ship which is therefore economically nonviable? (But sure does make for a pretty press package!)