You just need the components bagged up. There's a massive workforce available. People will work their butts off to feed themselves. Vast farming fields - don't need 'em. Let each family work their backyard.
I suspect it's being strangled, like most oversized organizations, by people in the administration who focus on preserving jobs, salaries, and benefits of all the little people whose fate is in their hands, rather than the goals of the organization.
An even cheaper alternative for non-permanent setups: old twist-ties from loafs of bread. I keep them in a kitchen drawer for future use. These and color-coded cables seem to work well to keep things organized.
.. then you will understand why a majority share of the profits go to those who shoulder a majority of the risks
A soldier shoulders the majority of risk in war.. where does the profit go? A laborer without benefits risks the financial future of themselves and family, where does the profit go? If a poor man puts the future of his entire family on the line for a company, whereas a rich stockholder puts a small fraction of his investments into that company, how can you consider the distribution of profits to be fair?
We've become accustomed to the reality of the dollar in today's world, but acceptance doesn't make it justified. There are countless rules that construct the reality of today, and they can be changed to meet moral expectations of society. It is foolish to think the system is perfect today, and its obvious the OP's questions were made in this regard.
Sweet, DIY AI driving! Do you know of any enthusiast forums? I'm so there.
Certification could be required for AI systems through legislation, but how could this be enforced? Unless there's a collision investigation, whether it's a human or a machine turning the wheel is hard to tell. Perhaps all vehicles will be forced to integrate a government-endorsed AI which overtakes the driving controls under dangerous conditions.
To me, if a thought process isn't innate, then I must consciously traverse it, step-wise. I suppose processes that I haven't been rigorously taught may consist of a set of steps which are only somewhat dependent on order, and I stumble my way through fulfilling requirements as necessary. Either way, I must consciously make my way from one part of a sequence to another.
This involves calling up the next step, which can be fast if the steps have been rigorously learned, or slower if I must analyze the process and determine (perhaps through logic) what the next step should be. At the same time I must temporarily save any data pertinent to the current stage of the entire process, to be utilized either immediately or further down the "processing pipeline."
I believe that makes a decent generalization of conscious thought processes for me, and it probably applies to most people. The act of performing this process in itself is a conscious decision, which the mind's eye must also keep itself aware of. Otherwise, it could get distracted, and lose itself in some tangent during a step in a thought process and either hamper the efficiency of the process or never finish it altogether.. All of that can also waste considerable processing power;)
Evolution is easy enough to comprehend. You could say the reason for anything related to humans is because of evolution.. Just because evolution happened doesn't make it the answer to 'why'.. Then again, one could argue causation is only an opinion dependent on your take of the question.
Intelligent folk should be above it. Both parties are broken, neither party aligns with your beliefs. Government isn't a sports game - the only real winners or losers are the people. The people of the US are giving up their independence and freedom to numbing mountains of laws and bureaucracy. They are ignorant of government spending and its resultant inflation and debt.
The almighty dollar is the foundation we all stand upon and if you don't recognize the need for concern, you need to start paying attention to what our own accountants are saying - your Congressmen are not.
What money the Fed does make -- profits, that is, after paying its own expenses -- the Fed pays back to the Treasury.
I've always assumed the Fed was a legit organization, but this statement intrigues me. It assumes the Fed makes a profit. What if the Fed didn't profit, but rather lost money? Wouldn't that mean they handed out a bunch of money without getting paid back? Sounds like someone still profited..
And how do they determine what is profit? Perhaps the Fed earns 5 billion in interest from legit loans to banks. They also drop 5 billion in loans to certain unnamed parties but the recipients go bankrupt and the money isn't repaid. Did the Fed break even? Somebody walked away with 5 billion..
Also, if the Fed is handing out loans at a lower interest rate than the market, wouldn't that put the recipients (banks) at a consistent advantage to every other borrower (individuals)?
so while the concept of parallel universes is necessary to comprehend statistical analysis, this does not indicate parallel universes actually exist, only that reality acts as if they do. kind of like an invisible friend..
sorry, it's early, and after reading the article and the comments I still don't see a consensus on whether the second child can also be a boy born on a tuesday. is this an interesting statistical analysis or an interesting english analysis?
In theory, copyright is upheld to allow amortization of production costs through reproduction sales. Quoting portions of a text in a search response only serves to help that text be located, and perhaps, a sale made. There should be a law against convoluted laws.
The big fish is why isn't there competition in the cell provider market. How are they getting away with the oligopoly, and why is the federal government not doing its job? If other companies could compete, they could easily outsell the existing ones with lower rates, less charges, more beeps, etc.
That's a great point. It'd probably be a more efficient use of funds to implement a municipal-scale ground source heat pump distribution network.
Photoelectric takes a long time to pay for itself. GSHP are relatively cheap - the expensive part is the digging. Distribute that cost among the community and I'd be surprised if the bang per buck wasn't many times better than PE.
Indeed, even the notion of a "moment in time" throughout the universe is only a human concept. It's any previous configuration of the universe which led to this one. A future moment would be a possible later configuration. But quantum physics hints these are not predictable events.
If alternate universes and such are possible, then is it not also possible that the universe has no total configuration, but is composed of separate parts linked through space and time?
If you consider these networks as mere data carriers and consider texting not to be essential to the existence of the networks.. then bandwidth costs are relatively nothing.
You could reduce customers per tower from 100,000 to 100 and change the average texting rate from 1 per 8 hours to 10 per 5 minutes and get the same result. The point is, it costs nothing.
It costs phone companies a hell of a lot more to send 1000 texts than it does for a 3G user to download a 160kb image.
It's true for pretty much every business everywhere that if you do things in incredibly tiny properties, you're going to be charged through the roof.
Yes, which explains why my x86 processor crunching 3 billion incredibly tiny instructions per second costs me millions of dollars to operate, and my gigabit ethernet lan sending millions of incredibly tiny data packets per second is just as costly.
I don't know actual numbers, so let's be conservative.
Let's say the average customer sends 1 text per day, and all these texts occur during a prime 8-hour window.
(1 text/day) / (8 hr/day) / (60 min/hr) / (60 sec/min) = 3.47e-5 texts/sec/customer average
Now let's assume each message uses 300 bytes with overhead, and let's assume each tower handles 100,000 customers (conservatively):
(3.47e-5 text/sec/customer) * (300 bytes/text) * (100,000 customers) = 1041 bytes/sec
So with these insanely conservative numbers, cell towers only require 8 kbps bandwidth for text messages.
How is this +5 Insightful? It's obvious to me that funneling the decisions into the hands of a much smaller group of Representatives is the correct mode of action.
The fault lies in how these Representatives are selected. Logic would dictate they need to be resistant to 1) popular opinion 2) discrimination 3) group-think 4) corruption.
Now here is where the average citizen laughs off the idea of a politician meeting such criteria. Instead, we should be asking how best to select such people.
Slashdot Mirror
You just need the components bagged up. There's a massive workforce available. People will work their butts off to feed themselves. Vast farming fields - don't need 'em. Let each family work their backyard.
I suspect it's being strangled, like most oversized organizations, by people in the administration who focus on preserving jobs, salaries, and benefits of all the little people whose fate is in their hands, rather than the goals of the organization.
An even cheaper alternative for non-permanent setups: old twist-ties from loafs of bread. I keep them in a kitchen drawer for future use. These and color-coded cables seem to work well to keep things organized.
.. then you will understand why a majority share of the profits go to those who shoulder a majority of the risks
A soldier shoulders the majority of risk in war.. where does the profit go? A laborer without benefits risks the financial future of themselves and family, where does the profit go? If a poor man puts the future of his entire family on the line for a company, whereas a rich stockholder puts a small fraction of his investments into that company, how can you consider the distribution of profits to be fair?
We've become accustomed to the reality of the dollar in today's world, but acceptance doesn't make it justified. There are countless rules that construct the reality of today, and they can be changed to meet moral expectations of society. It is foolish to think the system is perfect today, and its obvious the OP's questions were made in this regard.
Sweet, DIY AI driving! Do you know of any enthusiast forums? I'm so there.
Certification could be required for AI systems through legislation, but how could this be enforced? Unless there's a collision investigation, whether it's a human or a machine turning the wheel is hard to tell. Perhaps all vehicles will be forced to integrate a government-endorsed AI which overtakes the driving controls under dangerous conditions.
They are inserting a middle man in every single trade to leech the difference between buyer and seller.
Just like the tax man.
To me, if a thought process isn't innate, then I must consciously traverse it, step-wise. I suppose processes that I haven't been rigorously taught may consist of a set of steps which are only somewhat dependent on order, and I stumble my way through fulfilling requirements as necessary. Either way, I must consciously make my way from one part of a sequence to another.
This involves calling up the next step, which can be fast if the steps have been rigorously learned, or slower if I must analyze the process and determine (perhaps through logic) what the next step should be. At the same time I must temporarily save any data pertinent to the current stage of the entire process, to be utilized either immediately or further down the "processing pipeline."
I believe that makes a decent generalization of conscious thought processes for me, and it probably applies to most people. The act of performing this process in itself is a conscious decision, which the mind's eye must also keep itself aware of. Otherwise, it could get distracted, and lose itself in some tangent during a step in a thought process and either hamper the efficiency of the process or never finish it altogether.. All of that can also waste considerable processing power ;)
Evolution is easy enough to comprehend. You could say the reason for anything related to humans is because of evolution.. Just because evolution happened doesn't make it the answer to 'why'.. Then again, one could argue causation is only an opinion dependent on your take of the question.
Intelligent folk should be above it. Both parties are broken, neither party aligns with your beliefs. Government isn't a sports game - the only real winners or losers are the people. The people of the US are giving up their independence and freedom to numbing mountains of laws and bureaucracy. They are ignorant of government spending and its resultant inflation and debt. The almighty dollar is the foundation we all stand upon and if you don't recognize the need for concern, you need to start paying attention to what our own accountants are saying - your Congressmen are not.
What money the Fed does make -- profits, that is, after paying its own expenses -- the Fed pays back to the Treasury.
I've always assumed the Fed was a legit organization, but this statement intrigues me. It assumes the Fed makes a profit. What if the Fed didn't profit, but rather lost money? Wouldn't that mean they handed out a bunch of money without getting paid back? Sounds like someone still profited..
And how do they determine what is profit? Perhaps the Fed earns 5 billion in interest from legit loans to banks. They also drop 5 billion in loans to certain unnamed parties but the recipients go bankrupt and the money isn't repaid. Did the Fed break even? Somebody walked away with 5 billion..
Also, if the Fed is handing out loans at a lower interest rate than the market, wouldn't that put the recipients (banks) at a consistent advantage to every other borrower (individuals)?
so while the concept of parallel universes is necessary to comprehend statistical analysis, this does not indicate parallel universes actually exist, only that reality acts as if they do. kind of like an invisible friend..
sorry, it's early, and after reading the article and the comments I still don't see a consensus on whether the second child can also be a boy born on a tuesday. is this an interesting statistical analysis or an interesting english analysis?
In theory, copyright is upheld to allow amortization of production costs through reproduction sales. Quoting portions of a text in a search response only serves to help that text be located, and perhaps, a sale made. There should be a law against convoluted laws.
The big fish is why isn't there competition in the cell provider market. How are they getting away with the oligopoly, and why is the federal government not doing its job? If other companies could compete, they could easily outsell the existing ones with lower rates, less charges, more beeps, etc.
So true, so sad.
That's a great point. It'd probably be a more efficient use of funds to implement a municipal-scale ground source heat pump distribution network.
Photoelectric takes a long time to pay for itself. GSHP are relatively cheap - the expensive part is the digging. Distribute that cost among the community and I'd be surprised if the bang per buck wasn't many times better than PE.
Smoke and mirrors. Minus the smoke.
Indeed, even the notion of a "moment in time" throughout the universe is only a human concept. It's any previous configuration of the universe which led to this one. A future moment would be a possible later configuration. But quantum physics hints these are not predictable events.
If alternate universes and such are possible, then is it not also possible that the universe has no total configuration, but is composed of separate parts linked through space and time?
there is something more absolute about the Earth reference than the spacecraft's reference
Like gravitational and electromagnetic fields?
What about my moped? My bicycle? Are you going to tax me when I go jogging?
Oh my, a mileage tax causes such warm and fuzzy feelings.
If you consider these networks as mere data carriers and consider texting not to be essential to the existence of the networks.. then bandwidth costs are relatively nothing.
You could reduce customers per tower from 100,000 to 100 and change the average texting rate from 1 per 8 hours to 10 per 5 minutes and get the same result. The point is, it costs nothing.
It costs phone companies a hell of a lot more to send 1000 texts than it does for a 3G user to download a 160kb image.
It's true for pretty much every business everywhere that if you do things in incredibly tiny properties, you're going to be charged through the roof.
Yes, which explains why my x86 processor crunching 3 billion incredibly tiny instructions per second costs me millions of dollars to operate, and my gigabit ethernet lan sending millions of incredibly tiny data packets per second is just as costly.
How on earth did you get modded +4 insightful.
I don't know actual numbers, so let's be conservative.
Let's say the average customer sends 1 text per day, and all these texts occur during a prime 8-hour window.
(1 text/day) / (8 hr/day) / (60 min/hr) / (60 sec/min) = 3.47e-5 texts/sec/customer average
Now let's assume each message uses 300 bytes with overhead, and let's assume each tower handles 100,000 customers (conservatively):
(3.47e-5 text/sec/customer) * (300 bytes/text) * (100,000 customers) = 1041 bytes/sec
So with these insanely conservative numbers, cell towers only require 8 kbps bandwidth for text messages.
How is this +5 Insightful? It's obvious to me that funneling the decisions into the hands of a much smaller group of Representatives is the correct mode of action.
The fault lies in how these Representatives are selected. Logic would dictate they need to be resistant to 1) popular opinion 2) discrimination 3) group-think 4) corruption.
Now here is where the average citizen laughs off the idea of a politician meeting such criteria. Instead, we should be asking how best to select such people.
Imagine how many effects aren't obvious.