Obesity in the US isn't due out influx of food, if your opinion was true, then we would have seen Obesity back in the 1950's Not starting in the 1990's
I think the real issue is a subset of processed food, which is Diet Food. That is right that low fat, low calorie food is what is making us fat. Why? Because we are eating low calories, but empty calories which then makes us feel hungry later on, so we eat until we get everything we need. A hearty home made chicken soup, with those yellow blobs of fat floating on top. Veggies, and chunks of meat. A bowl of that fills you up and you are mostly good until it is time for the next meal. Vs. a can of Diet Chicken Soup. with a couple of bits of chicken, a few veggies and full of noodles, less blobs of yellow fat, and more salty. You eat that, then you need to snack later on. Because you feel guilty about eating unhealthy stuff you eat more of the diet food which still doesn't satisfy you.
We also eat smaller breakfasts as part of our diet to loose weight, why because it is easy in the morning, your will power is high from your night of rest. So it is easy, but what happens is your body goes into starvation mode, so everything you eat your body will try to store for later. If you go to McDonald's for breakfast vs McDonald's for dinner you will see the breakfast customers are much more slimmer on average then the dinner customers. Because the breakfast customers are having a larger breakfast, it stops the starvation mode, keeps them filled allowing them to not be starving for lunch, and the lunch holds over to dinner.
I am less concerned on who ones the hardware but who ones the wires. The problem sense technology improved to give average citizen high speed internet. We have lost option. Back in the day of the late 1990's while we had slow dial up, we had a choice of ISP's. We had the big names like AOL, MSN, Compuserve, Prodigy where you pay a premium for extra features. But we also has a slew of independent ISP local to you area. Because to become an ISP you will need a T1 line and a PC with a digiboard and extra modems. If you had a hundred customers over 25 nodes you still charging $15 a month you still broke even. Normally a small ISP had 250 customers over 100 nodes and was able to run as a small business. Today we don't have the wired infrastructure to allow multiple ISP. We have Mostly Cable, DSL hasn't caught up to well. And very limited deployment of fiber. So in a city you may be lucky to have a choice of 2 or 3 ISP's, and it goes down to 1 very rapidly.
I want the ISP to be independently operated, however we need a government infrastructure to handle the wires so they get to everyone, and allow us to choose our ISP's again, and possibly allow use little guys to play in the same field again.
Oh NO. The United States got into a Large Recession in 2008 (which wasn't even as big as the Great Depression) then you figure it is the end of our civilization?
Compared to the rest of the world the US is very strong economically. Sure we are not the golden boys we were lead to believe we were in the 1950's. Partially due the the fact the rest of the world was bombed out during WWII, and we got back an influx in our workforce who had been trained and had access to the GI bill for education.
We like to find simple solution to a problem. However this is hard case. How much blabbering about my side it right and your side is wrong. The Democrats go those damn Republicans don't they see, they are missing the big picture, if they just welcomed our idea then all the problems will be fixed. The Republicans say the same thing about Democrats too.
The problem is, that most problems are complex with many forces pulling at the problem in a lot of directions.
Lets use Net Neutrality. We pay for high speed internet services at a good rate because we share the bandwidth other customers, the ISP business model depends that people will not flood their lines. Newer companies are coming up that uses more bandwidth because the customers can support it. People like these new services and start using them. So over time they use more and more bandwidth until the ISP business model isn't working. So we now have a complex problem. 1. The ISP improves their bandwidth and passes the cost to the consumer. Where they piss off their customer base, and being high speed internet is a near monopoly in the area, means the customers will get all political on them. 2. The ISP charges the content provider the extra money, keeping the consumer prices the same. Now this can open the door for abuse where they can unfairly give more speed to their services and less toward their competitors services. 3. The ISP eats the cost. Preventing further expansion and improvements in service as their model increasingly get unprofitable. 4. The Government flips the bill. Meaning all the tax payers are subsiding people leisure activity, increasing peoples taxes means less money towards other services. There are no good answers on what can be done, it is actually a complex problem. Net Neutrality comes at a cost. Not having Net Neutrality comes as a cost too. The real question is which is costlier, and how do you calculate the cost.
The smaller companies, tend to pick up the less profitable areas, because the big guys get them all. Think of it as an Easter egg hunt. The more aggressive stronger boys will often get all the easy to find eggs, leaving the little smaller kids, trying to find the harder to find eggs...
However they usually end up with something so they are happy. The same thing with cable companies. If they can expand their range all the better. If they get lucky a particular area could start growing thus give them something more valuable. However more people who know their name the better.
Why do I get the feeling that the Rural locations are going to be part of this group. You know the group that may have miles of cable to maintain, for a less populated group of people. And giving up that group, to the competition prevents them from keeping their costs down, as they are covering more expensive areas to maintain. Thus making them seem less appealing. Causing people in that region to try to get a more affordable service in that area. Thus making Comcast look like the savior coming in to save the day!
High End watches are a work of art. They don't even make digital watches, and they never passed them off as a neat idea.
However if we think back to the 1980's, a lot of people wore digital watches. The common adult model went beep every hour, and could be setup to run as a stopwatch, and a alarm clock. (The standard 4 button model). Sure if you wanted to go on a job interview or to a stylish place you probably wouldn't wear the watch and go with the fancy analog one.
Today most of the population doesn't wear a watch, they have their phone on them and they are setup to tell time (Your cell phone is like a modern day pocket watch) If companies can get the Smart Phone watches cool enough, then people will buy them and wear them... But still the fancy watches will remain.
Please explain to me what is or has been on TV, that is actually smart TV? Almost all public media that lasts more then one season (TV/Comic Books/Radio/Popular Blogs...) in general are made so someone with an 8th grade education will be able to get it. That is where the money is in. And if you get too much past that then viewers will drop.
Why 8th grade? Well that marks an end of a students general education and they begin specializing. Some kids take more electives in the Math and Sciences, others towards Art and Music, and others go to Writing and Literature. Then when they get into college they will focus down on a particular Major, Grad School they will begin to focus down further in a particular topic in that Major. Then finally PHD where you focus on one thing in that topic. Because people get specialized it gets harder to market Smart broadcasts because you start weeding out people who haven't studied much in that particular topic and will not get it.
If you want to get informed on a topic without schooling you will need to go to more geeky places on the internet. Read the academic Journals, Find mentors who are experts to help you out. But for general media, you will just get the overview that a 13 year old will be able to understand.
I think the scary part for the energy producers, is that average citizen will be able to produce energy for their own means without having to be a slave to the grid and infrastructure.
Whenever the general public gets access to a new technology, the big companies convince the government to take it away from us.
back in the early 90's we had a BBS, which we could host on normal phone lines, then we got dialup internet. Because it was shared via standard infrastructure, they were dozens of ISP around that you can pick and choose from. Then they started going toward DSL, which reduced the ISPs down a bit more, and Now we Have Cable or Fiber in select locations. Our choices has dropped down and we are slaves to the big companies again.
Now for energy, we use to really need to grid to produce power. But with newer technologies we can produce our power ourselves. And now forces wants us to give it back to the grid and demand that we use it.
Solar/Wind power means we can use our own property to generate electricity. That is the scary part.
In short it is a problem of eroding middle class. If you are poor, then you can get government assistance for food, heat, healthcare, and even housing support.
If you are rich, you convince the government not to tax you on many of the things used to create your wealth.
Which leaves the middle class who is shrinking to take on the burden. We make too much get subsidies, but we also not make enough to really take advantage of the breaks.
So lets take a average family house hold of 90k a year for 3 people. That sounds like a solid middle class number, in some locations it would be upper middle class.
So after taxes per month they get about 4.5k. 2k goes to their home mortgage. 1k will go towards grocery/cleaning supplies (food has gotten expensive) 0.5k will go towards fuel for 2 cars. 0.5k goes to power/telephone/internet/TV
This leaves roughly $500 per month. Now if they have to make care payments and/or school loans they add up too. Meaning this middle class family is just getting by. Sure there are areas where they can cut. but with a family of three, it will be difficult as every person tends to have different ideas where to cut.
A lot of the Luxury stuff. TV, Video Games, Computers... You save up and buy. However the problem today that is really affecting the middle class are the cost of living. Now once the mortgage is payed off then you can start having an advantage. But before that you are struggling. This is also the time in your life where you have the energy and need to bring up a family.
As far as a solution I see the government needs to do the following. 1. Insure Food/Fuel prices remain low. This will mean we need to adjust for global warming, Encourage growth to the new more fertile lands and away from the new dangerous risky places (Sorry California). Invest into alternative energy to make it price competitive with fossil fuels. The extra competition will reduce demand for fuel thus bring down prices further, so those who need the fossil fuels can have it at a better rate, as well those who don't need it will have cheap greener alternatives. There is also a need to encourage the populations tastes, towards healthy foods, that are more sustainable and cheaper to produce. Poultry vs. Red Meet, Native to North America/that can grow in the wild without much help Fruits and Vegetables. If we can convince a good part of the population to vote Tea Party even if it is against their own interests, why is it so hard to get people to eat food that it is towards their own self interest.
2. Mixed Class Neighborhoods. Right now people are stuck on the value of their homes and make communities where the rich live one place, and poor live somewhere else. This is what keeps housing from being affordable. As new housing developments will try to attract "Better People" as to raise the areas property values. Thus making low income housing in decaying areas of the communities. When they build a new housing developments they need to be required to properly house the general population. A few low income homes, a few High End homes, and a bulk of middle class, and have them mixed. The problem we have today. The Rich do not understand or have emotionally forgotten what it is like to be poor. The Poor doesn't understand or have any roll models on how to advance up. The middle class is stuck with attributes of both. Mixed communities overall will be much more positive. Yes these poor people will lower the property values... But that means people will be getting nicer homes for less, and I expect with the poor people living in nicer neighborhoods, they will not bring it down that much, as they will work to keep their area presentable just to not look like the local poor person.
3. Reduce taxes and government spending and regulations. Well lets refine this, we need to do this in the right areas. There are a lot of laws towards individual safety vs. Public safety. We are able to successfully sue people and companies for a range of stuff.
1. Most hospitals are operating at a loss, thus do not have money to maintain a strong infrastructure. Meaning that website could be on the same pipe as the rest of the organization.
2. The web sites now offer more services to patients and other providers. Such as logging in and able to send their Medical Records, Book and Appointment, or securely send a message to your doctor.
3. If you kill the Router (That devices that will need to direct you to the website) as the device wouldn't expect that type of load, it causes problems with other places it is trying to work with. As the software will often need to talk to other locations. For example Lab work is often done at different locations then sent over to your Dr. for review. If the network goes down the Dr. may not get the results.
In short you do not know how things are connected, and could be combined with other things that you don't expect.
To say, It is only a website doesn't mean DDoS the site will not cause other problems.
So you are expecting every small company to afford a large network infrastructure. A lot of the services you enjoy a rather a cheap price, is due to these data centers. The customers who were not hosted didn't go down... However because they ran the software on a PC under the desk, they had 2x the total outages and often lasted for hours, due to poor infrastructure.
I do blame the "hackers", as they were the ones who went on purpose to damage a computer network. They said to themselves "Self, I am going to do something today that will negatively effect someone else".
First. You can put the satellite so it will always be facing the sun... However, you will need a strip of power receivers that strips across the world. otherwise you will get a large block of rock call the Earth getting in the way of beaming the energy. You may be able to store it then blast it out every day. However energy needs of the world require longer spread out energy. That is why we don't power stuff by lighting.
Second. When you beam the energy back, that energy is going to go threw clouds and weather, perhaps fry a bird or two. So a lot of that energy gained will be loss.
Third. The military isn't really a model of effective energy. They will sacrifice a lot of power efficiency if it gives them a tactical advantage.
I've worked in healthcare. The company I worked for had their services hosted for at a data center. That Data Center also hosted some Banks. Groups like anonymous think they are performing some social disobedience by DDoS the banks, Also DDoS the actual Data center. While it took a few minutes for the network to switch over there were a few hundred doctors who couldn't access their software, for that time.
XKCD described these attacks like vandalizing a bill board. But it is more like vandalizing a bill board by shooting a gun at it, and not knowing who or what is behind it.
Well they get a mix of DNA to make a new person. After the egg gets fertilized, it gains a new unique genetic structure to both the parents. So in essence it is new again.
But how does that relate to your temperature in your home. You may be using 10% more just because you have a couple extra PCs running all the time.
But if your home uses 10% more energy per other homes considering changes in temperature. That could mean that you may get some sort of deal on insulation, or weatherizing your home. Perhaps they may charge you more because you run the AC with the windows open.
With 3D printers it is a bit more extreme... How often do we really get stuff, Like from molded plastic? If I had a 3d printer, I may print out some jig every few months... however for the most part it will sit there and be unused.
Not necessarily. While parts will be vendor locked in, these companies can support back for other components.
In many ways the boring/non marketable stuff is sent back in help improving the product. As if they choose to fork, that means they will need to fully support that fork continuing on. Vs. supporting back changes and being able to keep your product consistent with the core project.
If the big players didn't jump in and show good faith, that could mean congress could jump in and force some regulations on them.
Laws that may punish the free riders more if their service was vulnerable. Or in general more laws punishing companies for software bugs, will cause havoc with the institution.
Software of any complexity will tend to have bugs... Sometimes these are security bugs. Having them being punished for not being perfect will have a chilling effect on the industry. It is better to show that the industry is attempting to regulate itself and taking steps to prevent the problem, then letting congress pass a non useful bill that will sound good, but will end up being more harmful.
Doors are often a convent method to block graphic rendering. If you notice in a small room, you get more detail, then when you are outside in a wide area.
However growing up Playing Sierra 3d adventure games, if a building has a door on it, you try opening it in as many ways possible. Oh the hours I have wasted in Quest For Glory building up my lock pick skills so I could break into the Barber Shop. Back before people had internet. You really had to try everything.
Without DRM, most of the content providers will not provide legal content for you to download.
The key problem with digital streaming media, is that there is no physicality. So the core values of supply and demand gets out of whack. As we can get a near infinite supply thus reducing the price to 0. However the cost to make such material is much more. What DRM does is set an artificial limit on supply, thus keeping the cost high. While it is easy to jump to this as being yet an other example how companies are screwing us over. But in short these companies will not be able to operate if they give away their product at a loss. Unless you really want you tax money going towards movie makers, and if the feds start paying for the movies, there is just a quick step to make sure propaganda gets sent across.
Golf, is a low impact sport, where you can get good exercise but not seem like a jock.
However I don't think it is the size of the hole is the major factor. That is why we have handicap levels.
But the following: 1. Cost of equipment. Paying more then $100 to start a sport, makes entry difficult. 2. Size of equipment. A golf bag, fills a significant portion of your cars trunk, or you need a place to store it off season. 3. Golf Greens, often require you to pre-plan a Tee time, often you may need to join a club to gain access.
For all disciplines. If you are an A Student then chances are you were not challenged in school. The A Student is usually the following... Took classes in topics that they already knew about. Sacrificed a bit too much human skills just to get the grade. Are well rehearsed in cheating/pay off people to do the work. Weasel the professors to up their grade.
When I applied to Grad school, the Dean asked me about a couple of C+ on my transcripts, My response was those were the classes I learned the most in, because these were classes that covered topics that I never explored before, so every thing was new to me, and required me think about it differently. The classes that I got a B+ or better in, were classes I took because I needed the credits, they covered stuff that I knew 85% already and I just need to fill in a few gaps.
There are some majors that are very easy to get A's in. Because if they have strong Writing Skills, they just BS a paper with minimal logic. While other majors Just as the Math and Science, BS will only go so far. And your grading is very mechanical.
The education system over values these grades, thus when you get into Grad School, grading actually curves upwards as not to have everyone dropout. Because you need a 3.0 to stay in the program that means your D level work gets a C+, your C Level work gets a B-, Your B Level work gets a B and A level work gets an A. So a B- quality student will be staying above the 3.0.
But your grades very from different schools, different professors, different time lectures started... It really isn't fruitful to nitpick a student for a job if they were a 3.20 vs a 4.0 unless all other things were equal.
Slashdot Mirror
Obesity in the US isn't due out influx of food, if your opinion was true, then we would have seen Obesity back in the 1950's Not starting in the 1990's
I think the real issue is a subset of processed food, which is Diet Food. That is right that low fat, low calorie food is what is making us fat.
Why? Because we are eating low calories, but empty calories which then makes us feel hungry later on, so we eat until we get everything we need.
A hearty home made chicken soup, with those yellow blobs of fat floating on top. Veggies, and chunks of meat. A bowl of that fills you up and you are mostly good until it is time for the next meal. Vs. a can of Diet Chicken Soup. with a couple of bits of chicken, a few veggies and full of noodles, less blobs of yellow fat, and more salty. You eat that, then you need to snack later on. Because you feel guilty about eating unhealthy stuff you eat more of the diet food which still doesn't satisfy you.
We also eat smaller breakfasts as part of our diet to loose weight, why because it is easy in the morning, your will power is high from your night of rest. So it is easy, but what happens is your body goes into starvation mode, so everything you eat your body will try to store for later. If you go to McDonald's for breakfast vs McDonald's for dinner you will see the breakfast customers are much more slimmer on average then the dinner customers. Because the breakfast customers are having a larger breakfast, it stops the starvation mode, keeps them filled allowing them to not be starving for lunch, and the lunch holds over to dinner.
I am less concerned on who ones the hardware but who ones the wires.
The problem sense technology improved to give average citizen high speed internet. We have lost option.
Back in the day of the late 1990's while we had slow dial up, we had a choice of ISP's. We had the big names like AOL, MSN, Compuserve, Prodigy where you pay a premium for extra features. But we also has a slew of independent ISP local to you area. Because to become an ISP you will need a T1 line and a PC with a digiboard and extra modems. If you had a hundred customers over 25 nodes you still charging $15 a month you still broke even. Normally a small ISP had 250 customers over 100 nodes and was able to run as a small business.
Today we don't have the wired infrastructure to allow multiple ISP. We have Mostly Cable, DSL hasn't caught up to well. And very limited deployment of fiber. So in a city you may be lucky to have a choice of 2 or 3 ISP's, and it goes down to 1 very rapidly.
I want the ISP to be independently operated, however we need a government infrastructure to handle the wires so they get to everyone, and allow us to choose our ISP's again, and possibly allow use little guys to play in the same field again.
Oh NO. The United States got into a Large Recession in 2008 (which wasn't even as big as the Great Depression) then you figure it is the end of our civilization?
Compared to the rest of the world the US is very strong economically. Sure we are not the golden boys we were lead to believe we were in the 1950's. Partially due the the fact the rest of the world was bombed out during WWII, and we got back an influx in our workforce who had been trained and had access to the GI bill for education.
We like to find simple solution to a problem. However this is hard case.
How much blabbering about my side it right and your side is wrong.
The Democrats go those damn Republicans don't they see, they are missing the big picture, if they just welcomed our idea then all the problems will be fixed. The Republicans say the same thing about Democrats too.
The problem is, that most problems are complex with many forces pulling at the problem in a lot of directions.
Lets use Net Neutrality.
We pay for high speed internet services at a good rate because we share the bandwidth other customers, the ISP business model depends that people will not flood their lines.
Newer companies are coming up that uses more bandwidth because the customers can support it.
People like these new services and start using them.
So over time they use more and more bandwidth until the ISP business model isn't working.
So we now have a complex problem.
1. The ISP improves their bandwidth and passes the cost to the consumer. Where they piss off their customer base, and being high speed internet is a near monopoly in the area, means the customers will get all political on them.
2. The ISP charges the content provider the extra money, keeping the consumer prices the same. Now this can open the door for abuse where they can unfairly give more speed to their services and less toward their competitors services.
3. The ISP eats the cost. Preventing further expansion and improvements in service as their model increasingly get unprofitable.
4. The Government flips the bill. Meaning all the tax payers are subsiding people leisure activity, increasing peoples taxes means less money towards other services.
There are no good answers on what can be done, it is actually a complex problem. Net Neutrality comes at a cost. Not having Net Neutrality comes as a cost too. The real question is which is costlier, and how do you calculate the cost.
The smaller companies, tend to pick up the less profitable areas, because the big guys get them all. Think of it as an Easter egg hunt. The more aggressive stronger boys will often get all the easy to find eggs, leaving the little smaller kids, trying to find the harder to find eggs...
However they usually end up with something so they are happy. The same thing with cable companies. If they can expand their range all the better. If they get lucky a particular area could start growing thus give them something more valuable. However more people who know their name the better.
Why do I get the feeling that the Rural locations are going to be part of this group. You know the group that may have miles of cable to maintain, for a less populated group of people. And giving up that group, to the competition prevents them from keeping their costs down, as they are covering more expensive areas to maintain. Thus making them seem less appealing. Causing people in that region to try to get a more affordable service in that area. Thus making Comcast look like the savior coming in to save the day!
A very different market.
High End watches are a work of art. They don't even make digital watches, and they never passed them off as a neat idea.
However if we think back to the 1980's, a lot of people wore digital watches. The common adult model went beep every hour, and could be setup to run as a stopwatch, and a alarm clock. (The standard 4 button model). Sure if you wanted to go on a job interview or to a stylish place you probably wouldn't wear the watch and go with the fancy analog one.
Today most of the population doesn't wear a watch, they have their phone on them and they are setup to tell time (Your cell phone is like a modern day pocket watch) If companies can get the Smart Phone watches cool enough, then people will buy them and wear them... But still the fancy watches will remain.
Please explain to me what is or has been on TV, that is actually smart TV?
Almost all public media that lasts more then one season (TV/Comic Books/Radio/Popular Blogs...) in general are made so someone with an 8th grade education will be able to get it. That is where the money is in. And if you get too much past that then viewers will drop.
Why 8th grade? Well that marks an end of a students general education and they begin specializing. Some kids take more electives in the Math and Sciences, others towards Art and Music, and others go to Writing and Literature. Then when they get into college they will focus down on a particular Major, Grad School they will begin to focus down further in a particular topic in that Major. Then finally PHD where you focus on one thing in that topic.
Because people get specialized it gets harder to market Smart broadcasts because you start weeding out people who haven't studied much in that particular topic and will not get it.
If you want to get informed on a topic without schooling you will need to go to more geeky places on the internet. Read the academic Journals, Find mentors who are experts to help you out. But for general media, you will just get the overview that a 13 year old will be able to understand.
I think the scary part for the energy producers, is that average citizen will be able to produce energy for their own means without having to be a slave to the grid and infrastructure.
Whenever the general public gets access to a new technology, the big companies convince the government to take it away from us.
back in the early 90's we had a BBS, which we could host on normal phone lines, then we got dialup internet. Because it was shared via standard infrastructure, they were dozens of ISP around that you can pick and choose from. Then they started going toward DSL, which reduced the ISPs down a bit more, and Now we Have Cable or Fiber in select locations. Our choices has dropped down and we are slaves to the big companies again.
Now for energy, we use to really need to grid to produce power. But with newer technologies we can produce our power ourselves. And now forces wants us to give it back to the grid and demand that we use it.
Solar/Wind power means we can use our own property to generate electricity. That is the scary part.
In short it is a problem of eroding middle class.
If you are poor, then you can get government assistance for food, heat, healthcare, and even housing support.
If you are rich, you convince the government not to tax you on many of the things used to create your wealth.
Which leaves the middle class who is shrinking to take on the burden.
We make too much get subsidies, but we also not make enough to really take advantage of the breaks.
So lets take a average family house hold of 90k a year for 3 people. That sounds like a solid middle class number, in some locations it would be upper middle class.
So after taxes per month they get about 4.5k.
2k goes to their home mortgage.
1k will go towards grocery/cleaning supplies (food has gotten expensive)
0.5k will go towards fuel for 2 cars.
0.5k goes to power/telephone/internet/TV
This leaves roughly $500 per month. Now if they have to make care payments and/or school loans they add up too. Meaning this middle class family is just getting by. Sure there are areas where they can cut. but with a family of three, it will be difficult as every person tends to have different ideas where to cut.
A lot of the Luxury stuff. TV, Video Games, Computers... You save up and buy. However the problem today that is really affecting the middle class are the cost of living. Now once the mortgage is payed off then you can start having an advantage. But before that you are struggling. This is also the time in your life where you have the energy and need to bring up a family.
As far as a solution I see the government needs to do the following.
1. Insure Food/Fuel prices remain low. This will mean we need to adjust for global warming, Encourage growth to the new more fertile lands and away from the new dangerous risky places (Sorry California). Invest into alternative energy to make it price competitive with fossil fuels. The extra competition will reduce demand for fuel thus bring down prices further, so those who need the fossil fuels can have it at a better rate, as well those who don't need it will have cheap greener alternatives. There is also a need to encourage the populations tastes, towards healthy foods, that are more sustainable and cheaper to produce. Poultry vs. Red Meet, Native to North America/that can grow in the wild without much help Fruits and Vegetables. If we can convince a good part of the population to vote Tea Party even if it is against their own interests, why is it so hard to get people to eat food that it is towards their own self interest.
2. Mixed Class Neighborhoods. Right now people are stuck on the value of their homes and make communities where the rich live one place, and poor live somewhere else. This is what keeps housing from being affordable. As new housing developments will try to attract "Better People" as to raise the areas property values. Thus making low income housing in decaying areas of the communities. When they build a new housing developments they need to be required to properly house the general population. A few low income homes, a few High End homes, and a bulk of middle class, and have them mixed. The problem we have today. The Rich do not understand or have emotionally forgotten what it is like to be poor. The Poor doesn't understand or have any roll models on how to advance up. The middle class is stuck with attributes of both. Mixed communities overall will be much more positive. Yes these poor people will lower the property values... But that means people will be getting nicer homes for less, and I expect with the poor people living in nicer neighborhoods, they will not bring it down that much, as they will work to keep their area presentable just to not look like the local poor person.
3. Reduce taxes and government spending and regulations. Well lets refine this, we need to do this in the right areas. There are a lot of laws towards individual safety vs. Public safety. We are able to successfully sue people and companies for a range of stuff.
Yes, it could.
1. Most hospitals are operating at a loss, thus do not have money to maintain a strong infrastructure. Meaning that website could be on the same pipe as the rest of the organization.
2. The web sites now offer more services to patients and other providers. Such as logging in and able to send their Medical Records, Book and Appointment, or securely send a message to your doctor.
3. If you kill the Router (That devices that will need to direct you to the website) as the device wouldn't expect that type of load, it causes problems with other places it is trying to work with. As the software will often need to talk to other locations. For example Lab work is often done at different locations then sent over to your Dr. for review. If the network goes down the Dr. may not get the results.
In short you do not know how things are connected, and could be combined with other things that you don't expect.
To say, It is only a website doesn't mean DDoS the site will not cause other problems.
So you are expecting every small company to afford a large network infrastructure. A lot of the services you enjoy a rather a cheap price, is due to these data centers.
The customers who were not hosted didn't go down... However because they ran the software on a PC under the desk, they had 2x the total outages and often lasted for hours, due to poor infrastructure.
I do blame the "hackers", as they were the ones who went on purpose to damage a computer network. They said to themselves "Self, I am going to do something today that will negatively effect someone else".
First. You can put the satellite so it will always be facing the sun... However, you will need a strip of power receivers that strips across the world. otherwise you will get a large block of rock call the Earth getting in the way of beaming the energy. You may be able to store it then blast it out every day. However energy needs of the world require longer spread out energy. That is why we don't power stuff by lighting.
Second. When you beam the energy back, that energy is going to go threw clouds and weather, perhaps fry a bird or two. So a lot of that energy gained will be loss.
Third. The military isn't really a model of effective energy. They will sacrifice a lot of power efficiency if it gives them a tactical advantage.
I've worked in healthcare.
The company I worked for had their services hosted for at a data center. That Data Center also hosted some Banks.
Groups like anonymous think they are performing some social disobedience by DDoS the banks, Also DDoS the actual Data center. While it took a few minutes for the network to switch over there were a few hundred doctors who couldn't access their software, for that time.
XKCD described these attacks like vandalizing a bill board. But it is more like vandalizing a bill board by shooting a gun at it, and not knowing who or what is behind it.
Well they get a mix of DNA to make a new person.
After the egg gets fertilized, it gains a new unique genetic structure to both the parents. So in essence it is new again.
But how does that relate to your temperature in your home.
You may be using 10% more just because you have a couple extra PCs running all the time.
But if your home uses 10% more energy per other homes considering changes in temperature. That could mean that you may get some sort of deal on insulation, or weatherizing your home. Perhaps they may charge you more because you run the AC with the windows open.
With 3D printers it is a bit more extreme...
How often do we really get stuff, Like from molded plastic?
If I had a 3d printer, I may print out some jig every few months... however for the most part it will sit there and be unused.
Not necessarily.
While parts will be vendor locked in, these companies can support back for other components.
In many ways the boring/non marketable stuff is sent back in help improving the product. As if they choose to fork, that means they will need to fully support that fork continuing on. Vs. supporting back changes and being able to keep your product consistent with the core project.
From what I understand the Aztek was actually a good car, It was just butt ugly so no one really wanted it.
If the big players didn't jump in and show good faith, that could mean congress could jump in and force some regulations on them.
Laws that may punish the free riders more if their service was vulnerable. Or in general more laws punishing companies for software bugs, will cause havoc with the institution.
Software of any complexity will tend to have bugs... Sometimes these are security bugs. Having them being punished for not being perfect will have a chilling effect on the industry. It is better to show that the industry is attempting to regulate itself and taking steps to prevent the problem, then letting congress pass a non useful bill that will sound good, but will end up being more harmful.
Doors are often a convent method to block graphic rendering.
If you notice in a small room, you get more detail, then when you are outside in a wide area.
However growing up Playing Sierra 3d adventure games, if a building has a door on it, you try opening it in as many ways possible.
Oh the hours I have wasted in Quest For Glory building up my lock pick skills so I could break into the Barber Shop.
Back before people had internet. You really had to try everything.
Without DRM, most of the content providers will not provide legal content for you to download.
The key problem with digital streaming media, is that there is no physicality. So the core values of supply and demand gets out of whack. As we can get a near infinite supply thus reducing the price to 0. However the cost to make such material is much more. What DRM does is set an artificial limit on supply, thus keeping the cost high.
While it is easy to jump to this as being yet an other example how companies are screwing us over. But in short these companies will not be able to operate if they give away their product at a loss. Unless you really want you tax money going towards movie makers, and if the feds start paying for the movies, there is just a quick step to make sure propaganda gets sent across.
Now where can we get it... Or purchase it.
Is it patented, is it Open Source.
Where is the link to the actual algorithm.
Golf, is a low impact sport, where you can get good exercise but not seem like a jock.
However I don't think it is the size of the hole is the major factor. That is why we have handicap levels.
But the following:
1. Cost of equipment. Paying more then $100 to start a sport, makes entry difficult.
2. Size of equipment. A golf bag, fills a significant portion of your cars trunk, or you need a place to store it off season.
3. Golf Greens, often require you to pre-plan a Tee time, often you may need to join a club to gain access.
For all disciplines.
If you are an A Student then chances are you were not challenged in school.
The A Student is usually the following...
Took classes in topics that they already knew about.
Sacrificed a bit too much human skills just to get the grade.
Are well rehearsed in cheating/pay off people to do the work.
Weasel the professors to up their grade.
When I applied to Grad school, the Dean asked me about a couple of C+ on my transcripts, My response was those were the classes I learned the most in, because these were classes that covered topics that I never explored before, so every thing was new to me, and required me think about it differently. The classes that I got a B+ or better in, were classes I took because I needed the credits, they covered stuff that I knew 85% already and I just need to fill in a few gaps.
There are some majors that are very easy to get A's in. Because if they have strong Writing Skills, they just BS a paper with minimal logic.
While other majors Just as the Math and Science, BS will only go so far. And your grading is very mechanical.
The education system over values these grades, thus when you get into Grad School, grading actually curves upwards as not to have everyone dropout.
Because you need a 3.0 to stay in the program that means your D level work gets a C+, your C Level work gets a B-, Your B Level work gets a B and A level work gets an A. So a B- quality student will be staying above the 3.0.
But your grades very from different schools, different professors, different time lectures started... It really isn't fruitful to nitpick a student for a job if they were a 3.20 vs a 4.0 unless all other things were equal.