We should make all the shadowy secretive hacker groups register for an ISBN or something. Otherwise how will they protect their copyright? If we don't do something it'll be like the IDV3 tagging of CDs all over again.
First they sell you the tag. Then they sell you untraceable tags. Then they sell you penetrating the untraceability. Then they sell you super-extra untraceability.
What a racket.
Solves some of the problems, but doesn't try to solve all of them. Why does your note interface developer need to also develop a global sync infrastructure? Ick.
Use it in a git repo, and you've got your synchronization layer, as complex or simple as you want it to be.
Smooth transitions to clean HTML or PDF presentation if you desire.
All the real-computer platforms taken care of, and several stabs at phone environments.
Because ALGORITHM!
*tapdance*
I look for a deluge to come.
You've got a pretty low number; That suggests you've been around a bit. Can you make a succinct statement of why you think Cmake is superior? The handwaving made me want to dismiss you as a young enthusiast, but it's possible you've got a case in mind.
I see cmake as one of a procession of local build systems ginned up by some subcommunity. A decade ago it was rake that was going to take over, and Maven before that. They grow really quickly in the environment where they can ignore the rest of the world, and then they senesce at the edges of their country, when it becomes necessary to coordinate with other ways of doing things. In the meantime, plain old GNU make continues to slowly, carefully increase its formal expressive power. I particularly liked the multi-result target in 4.3.
So, I won't say "You're wrong", but I will say I had a different response on your angles.
I think the pacing was excellent, slow enough lt dragged you along in tension, but fast enough I never even noticed the time pass. The product placement was entirely in line with the canon and the corporate dystopia: Why go invent _all_ new ones? I found leto compelling and creepy.
As for replicants reproducing: didn't you catch that the god-complex evil genius specifically _wanted_ reproduction? That's why it wasn't engineered out, because Mr. messiah-complex didn't want it so. And if you think GodCorp can't commit a murder in LAPD headquarters and get away with it, you need to go check your dystopias.
The flying car dogfight was not a dogfight. He was not "fleeing pursuit", that was a luxury limousine and cars with bodyguards, completely confident in their untouchability. Hubris. They absolutely could have run it as a military convoy with high cover if they'd felt like it. But they saw no reason.
I don't know what you mean by focus.
Again, this is not to say you're wrong, but the interpretations which so gall you are
What are we supposed to be unhappy about? That it wasn't another baygasm?
I've never been so spellbound by a 2+ hour movie
There's the signature nightmare and PTSD trigger for the next war.
At a few hundred dollars a pop, with a stationkeeping aerostat above them to charge them up, you could have hundreds of screaming mosquitoes blanketing the front line -all- -the- -time-. Relentless.
Syntactic whitespace makes me twitch, too; but it neatly resolves many of the codestyle hubbub issues you see in other language environments.
If your editor helps you do the right thing, it's just an aesthetic whine, and shouldn't be worth arguing about.
You don't do it "on the highway"; you do it on some moral equivalent of a rest stop, parking lot, whatever that is conveniently situated... Convenient for the AI to get to, that is.
You're dodging.
To your 1): Autonomous vehicles are probably adequate for 90% of situations right now in 2016. 90% is -way- low for broad deployment, but far better than you suggest. You should take a look at the current videos of the Tesla self-driving demo runs. Maneuvers around pedestrians are not fluid an humanlike, which is a problem. But they are pretty safe. I stand by my WAG of 5 years for broad adoption; half a sigfig is fine for squabbling on the internet.
To your 2): You're just whistling in the dark. 3.5 million truck drivers is a steady state, already taking into account additions and departures. We agree that "the transition will be completed"; but I claim it will complete with the result of probably 2.5 million fewer low-skill well-paying stable jobs than before.
The question is not "Will this transition occur", but rather "What is the human impact of the transition, and how can we account for it?".
-ALL- of our jobs are on this block. If you think you're immune because you're a knowledge worker, you've got your head in the sand.
You're right in an economic theory sense. Ask, though: As these changes happen incrementally, to whom does the profit accrue?
Hint: It's not to the truck driver who used to haul the goods.
This is the problem of automation. As we get superbly efficient, it becomes possible to feed the whole world, and administer that process, with a tiny fraction of the population. So: How do we administer giving food to all the people whose labor is not necessary? We've been finding makework for them, for the last half century. Second assistant managers of HR, associate vice president for diversity issues.
We need to find a theory, under which it is not demeaning that people get fed, even though their skills have no net value to society.
This is a bloody hard thing for a libertarian to confront (waves hands)
If you want to try out your analysis of silly, start by trying to answer "What employment sector can absorb the 3.5 million truck drivers who will be replaced with automated vehicles?". Apply your own biases for how quickly this will have to happen; I'm wild guessing ~5-7 years, starting ~5 years from now.
Then add a million bus and taxi drivers, and then add the job count you ascribe to the edges of trucking (convenience stores and such that cater to them)
The Neumann thruster is all about saving launch capacity. Most of the ion thrusters we have now work with e.g. Xenon gas; you have to loft their fuel, and your engine mass budget has to include the material handling for the propellant; tanks, valves, etc.
The idea of the neumann thruster is that your reaction mass comes from a simple sold puck which is gradually ionized; so you immediately win on a bunch of hardware you don't have to lift.
And then, you can use as reaction mass the sorts of stuff which is already up there in orbit. Got some excess second stage, which you've lofted to orbit at ruinous cost? Instead of dropping it back into the atmosphere to burn up, melt it into a puck at the focus of some mirrors, and then use it as reaction mass for a few years.
Space junk turned into valuable fuel. Big win.
As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare
