If you're experiencing a rural lifestyle, that's not the suburbs. I'm talking about the vast suburban wastelands where every house has ugly vinyl siding, the HOAs freak out if your grass isn't within a
It's basically a baby-blue enclosed forklift with a pump system, a water trailer, and a shield on the front. So terrifying.
It's not the implementation that makes it terrifying, it's the use case.
There's a good chance that this machine's software/interfaces will have....inadequate security.
Nothing I can see in the article suggests that this machine contains any software, or any interfaces other than your standard steering wheel/brake/accelerator. What are you referring to?
The problem is that it requires a Republican Congress to vote in favor of something that lets corporations get away with being stingy. Trump might decide to support it because he doesn't like Silicon Valley, but I can't imagine a Republican Congress siding with the little guy when it comes to money.
Trump was adamant that there should be a vote yesterday, presumably because it was the ACA's anniversary.
Is there any reason to suppose Trump gives a shit about this issue?
My gods, programmers have gotten lazy. What's next, extra CPU consumption for bold text? The system slowing down every time it beeps?
Or, we could at least allow for the possibility that the behavior was unintentional. If you've never written a program that inadvertently spins a core rather than correctly blocking while waiting for the next event in the event loop, then feel free to cast the first stone, but I imagine most programmers have made that mistake.
13 per cent CPU. For a blinking cursor. That's... impressive.
Yeah, but the blinking cursor looks so much more realistic when rendered at a full 60 frames per second. It really gives it that extra "pop".
You get five stars for being over-the-top judgmental and insulting -- apparently that's a requirement on the Internet -- but unless you have the time and money to see every movie, try every restaurant, etc, then you have to decide which ones to try and which to avoid based on something. What you're advocating is either making random decisions (which can be fun occasionally but also leads to wasting a lot of time and money suffering through crap), or making decisions based on other, less relevant criteria (such as which movie has the most competent advertising team, or which restaurant happens to be located in front of your eyeballs when your stomach rumbles).
If you want to make your decisions based on subconscious reasoning that you don't even understand yourself, go ahead, but don't blame others for trying to make an informed decision.
The problem is that any given reviewer wont "mesh" with what *YOU* like. Or what *I* like.
That's the point of aggregation sites like RottenTomatoes. Any given particular reviewer might have tastes that differ from yours or mine, but if 999 of 1000 reviewers all say the movie stinks, then it's very likely the movie stinks. Sure, you might be the rare exception whose tastes are similar to the lone holdout, but that's not the way to bet.
Prior to this, I'd have thought America and especially its government agencies do not hack.
Why would you have thought that? Spying has been going on since pretty much the dawn of time. It's what spy agencies do, and hacking computers is one way that they do it. Being surprised that the CIA does hacking is like being surprised that the Army shoots people.
I guess I was wrong. What troubles me is that the media only talked about the Russians, yet the act was taking place in our backyard!
What makes you think this spying was taking place in our backyard? The fact that the CIA was installing spyware doesn't mean that the CIA was installing spyware on the property of US citizens. (it doesn't mean they weren't, either -- but as a matter of law, they are not legally allowed to spy inside the US)
Sayeth the noob who didn't think about how long testing the change would take...
Agreed that replacing tested/working code with new "more efficient" code does incur a re-validation cost.
On the other hand, that's also an argument for writing the more-efficient implementation the first time, rather than waiting until some later release. Since you know it's all going to have to go through the testing cycle at least once, why waste your QA group's time testing slow/throwaway code, when you could have them spend that time testing the code you actually want your program to contain? (Assuming all other things are equal, which they often aren't, of course)
The shortest distance from A to B is a straight line.
NOWPRINT. NOWPRINT. Clemclone, back to the shadows again. - The Firesign Theater