I agree the web should not be censored, but if the web is available from, say, your television web browser, then it makes sense to filter the content to protect the children.
The FCC disagrees with you. They say that since the web is not prodcast, it doesn't have to be censored. It's not about "protecting the children." It's about "not restricting the choices of the children". In other words, there are, what 12 over-the-air channels in VHF, + some number more in UHF. The point is that there aren't that many. And it's unfair to children to set aside some of those channels for adult use, as it restricts their choices. Which is why the restrictions get relaxed between 10 and 6, because kids should be in bed then.
Since the Internet does not have the same limitations on sites producing content, it should not be restricted. And that's the current FCC position.
This is true. Also, a very good QA person has to show the same kind of thinking as a programmer, when it comes to reporting bugs. In fact, if you are looking for work as a programmer, I would bring a good bug report with you. You risk ending up back in QA, but if you don't have very many coding samples from the real world, a story about how you pieced together the exact combination that produced a bug makes for good substitute.
Where did ad-supported or no porn come from. Neither is in the article as far as I could tell. The condition for buying a chunk of spectrum for cell phones was that a sliver be set aside for free wifi. This seems good.
The FCC censors over-the-air television or radio in order to protect children. It makes sense they would do the same for over-the-air internet.
No it doesn't. It censors indecent and profane things during the day (well, and obcenity... but that's only because the Supreme Court has ruled Obcenity as an exception to the first amendment.) That's because there are only so many channels and to not limit the access of children during the day. Since the same constraint doesn't apply to the web, there's no reason for the FCC to try to censor it, and it would be illegal unless congress changed the laws the FCC operates under.
I can go to the library and view porn... the government doesn't really try to censor the internet in my view (offer valid in US, void in China, other places I have no idea.) At least not as far as restricting what sites adults go to.
Why can't people just use their common sense when it comes to patents?
Because for every one brilliant invention like the telephone, that is completely revolutionary, there are hundreds that seem obvious -- once you have been exposed to them.
Also, it's unfair for an inventor not to know the limits of patent law before they invest a lot of time/money in the application process.
And, unfortunately for Chrome, fans of Firefox and Opera are violently loyal customers. Even if Chrome supported addons I would have a hard time giving up my Opera.
he comment you originally quoted was referring to the fact that if you have one square meter of solar film and you wrap it around a bunch of cylinders then you will collect less energy than if you spread that square meter out flat
That's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about roof area. It will take more meters of film, I concede that, but it will be cheaper than making the films move. And it will fit more film per square meter on the roof.
The advantage of tubes over flat panels in capturing energy per area of roof is at best very small and probably non-existent.
No, it's drastically more efficent, see below.
If flat panels are 57% better at noon then they'll be about 57% better at any other time of day as well.
For the love of all get out, the sun is traverses 180 degrees, with 170 or so not blocked by the earth. The angle of the sun to the flat panel determines efficency. A plane has one optimal normal. If a flat panel is arranged optimally, the normal and vector to the sun will coincide at high noon. A tube has infinite optimal normals, with more area exposed so that the math equates it to a grid with the same cross-section optimally positioned at any given point of time. Which makes the same area on the roof more efficent with the exception of like 5 minutes. Maybe 15.
The sides would produce less electricity per square inch. But as you pointed out, there are more square inches.
Yes, I refer to energy per surface area of the roof. Space seems to be the limiting factor.
The reason for the gaps is so that at extreme angles of incidence, the cells seem dense. For an optimal flat array at the extreme angle, the same gaps are required.
Whether it would be worth the labor to change the angle a couple times a year is another question
For those of us not lucky enough to live close to a pole, the Sun takes less than a year to move significantly accross the sky. Angle of incidence changing over time of day is far more important than angle changing over seasons, and far hard.
Is this paragraph from the article misleading? I assume what they are getting at is that he didn't try to run away
It's not misleading. Turning oneself in means delivering yourself into police custody, usually by driving down to the police station. This is opposed to the cops having to track you down. I don't believe it has anything to do with confessions.
Neither Windows nor Mac can perform the same function. They can display one or the other screen, but not both.
I sit here on my XP box, typing on my left (1680x1050) high res monitor, and looking at my right ( 1280x1024) lower-res monitor. I can extend a video game across both monitors to run in 2960x1024 mode (wasting 26 rows of pixels on my big monitor) with DirectX keeping up.
a cylinder or half cylinder solar film is much less efficient than flat. The perimeter of a half circle with a diameter of one, is pi/2, or about 1.57. So that means you'll have to buy 57% more solar panel area than you would if you bought flat ones.
YOu're not talking about efficenicy, you're talking about cost. What I said is the cylinder is just as efficent, which means it generates as much energy as somthing that takes up an equivalent footprint on your roof (if that flat panel is angled perfectly). Yes, it takes mroe solor cells to produce. However, you don't have to worry about angle of incidence.
I supposse there are two ways I was considering it to be more efficent: roof space is more limiting than total solar cells, and stationary is much better than moving parts. The 57% more cells probably saves at least that much because they never have to move.
I wonder about the cylindrical shape, this would seem to block 50% of the surface area, where the sides and underside would produce less electricity than a flat sheet of the same area.
It seems counterintuitive, but if you do the calculus, it ends up being equivalent. You get more surface area, but with less direct angle of incidence (assuming the plane is perfectly aligned), so that it exactly balances out. And you have to do less repositioning.
There's a name for the principle that states it generally, but I forgot it. I just remember having to walk my friend through the math two years ago when it came up in their physics class.
Or is there some third level of "sleep" they're talking about here?
Kinda. What they are saying is that even with 0 load, the AC->DC adaptor still uses a bit of energy, so you have to actually unplug it to get the 1 watt savings. So, it's not the laptop per se that's using the energy, but what most people think of the adaptor as part of the computer, so included it is.
I don't know one way or the other, but one thing is certain -- anything the tax payers pay for should be owned by the taxpayers and controlled by taxpayers as far as can be deemed appropriate. (So, government buildings cannot be used by the homeless to sleep in!) But something as easy to share as software should definitely be owned by and made available to the people.
And I have shares of Blizzard, I want free WoW. I have shares of Apple, I want free OS X upgrades. I have shares of Microsoft, I want free copies of Vista and Office (feel free to throw out jokes about "why?" Short answer, I like security and I have Vista drivers for my hardware).
The tax payers do own it, and it is controlled by the taxpayers via their proxies in Washington/State Capital. Or sometimes, with software, the taxpayers only license some rights.
Because we're all going to end up paying through the nose for our TV and ISPs and consumer electronics which have this stuff in it.
Huh? The costs of production for V-chips are ridiculously small (one the order of pennies per set), and thus going to be absorbed rather than changing the price from XXX9.99 to XX(X+1)0.04
The government exists to protect your rights, not make your life better.
Eh, what rights someone has is certainly a matter of opinion or argument. I would contend that all rights are designed to allow people to make and act upon informed choices. Requiring information to be available and accesible to make those choices seems like the role of government (for instance, I can trust the calorie content of my food because of the FDA). Extending that to television makes sense.
No, you're asking me to help you pay for it. Nobody is stopping you from buying a TV that blocks programming, but I shouldn't have to help you pay for it.
Yeah, the cost of a V-Chip was something like 5 cents per unit. Hardly worth caring about.
I agree, the government shouldn't be involved in any of those things.
So go live in some practically uninhabited state/country. I want to live in a densely packed urban area. For some reason, you, who are so against government imposition, are trying to impose your anti-government beliefs on me. I want speed limits, an FCC, environmental and safety standards, because that's the only way a city can exist. Go live in bumblefuck, and no one will care enough to enforce the laws that you find so offensive.
You're two astrisked things are totally offbase. Universal healthcare does not imply you have to take advantage of it. And insurance is not gambling. It's removing risk. The difference is that in gambling you take a known outcome (dollar in your pocket) and replace it with an unknown outcome (2 dollars or zero dollars in your pocket). With insurance, you take an unknown outcome and replace it with a known. This can be thought of as either money in your pocket (reversed from my gambling example) or replacing a huge bad to one unknown person with a small bad to every person.
Keep the fruits and not buy healthcare are the asame. So are Choose treatments, and choose alternate treatments. Neither of which would be any worse than under an HMO. So in the later two arguments, really your only point is that the currently uninsured would have more options, but that would cost money. But I'm willing to bet that the currently uninsured are the ones who won't have to pay, so they will have more options.
And people who ned to choose whether to have healthcare for themselves or their children also fall into that category.
So all you're left with is a "my money is mine" argument. Which is a popular argument I admit, but far less insightful than your mods imply.
Instead, it seems to me to be kinda cheap and petty. When people are dying, I would say that those with the ability to help are morally required to.
Can't name a single supreme court decision besides Roe v. Wade.
That she disagrees with (assuming that since the Dred Scott and Plessy v. Furgession no longer apply, she disqualified them). Quick, what decisions do you disagree with? I can think of a couple, but all the ones I know the names of are from the 70's or before, and all the ones I think of to disagree with are more contemporary (or already named).
Even for personal purposes? What constitutes "personal"?
If someone has, for example, a linkedIn account, do they have to close it if they get elected?
No, that's not the point. They cannot do personal things in the guise of their office. For instance, President Bush, as a person, can be racist (an example I believe untrue, but sprang to mind quickly). As President, however, he has to have a non-racist approach to running the executive.
The Rep. can maintained the linked in account, but without the offical presence of his office.
This rule doesn't affect whether Rep. X can put up YouTube videos of "My crazy weekend". He always could. But now he can put up videos saying "The US House of Representatives did X" with him speaking as part of his job.
But he must not use his those official communiques for personal, commerical or campaigning reasons.
Similar to how my work might allow youtube to host our official videos (currently, our site does it), but I still couldn't connect me to my company for political or personal reasons (or other commercial ventures.)
As for it not being tied to the "volatile open market," that's why I explicitly said that private accounts could be very conservatively invested, in things like annuities or municipal bonds, and not the stock market.
Right now they are by law invested in US Treasury bonds. That's about as conservative an investment as you can get.
Also, your original question stated that teh accounts would be insured. What mechanism do you propose for that.
I asked about punishing incentive through excessive taxation,
Okay, the people being taxed have already succeeded, so that they no longer need incentive (see arguments about retroactive extentions of copyrights). Those that are dreaming big are not likely to be detered because they A) have not yet been hit by the tax, so the impact is theoretical. Studies have shown that theoretical future costs are discounted far more than theoretical future benefits. B) It's still a huge increase over what they are making now. C) That money can be used to help small business owners become big enough to have to give back. D) It will cause people to get paid more for their current work (EX. A business can give its CEO $1 million more, and have each Sr. VP who thinks they will become CEO get 25% of the incentive. Or it can give a smaller bonus to each Sr. VP. If the $1 million is more taxed, then it becomes cheaper to give many small bonuses lower on the food chain). E) See the Laffer curve. There is no indication that it would not incentivize people more, because they want to hit some level of income after taxes. After all, the Laffer curve says that 0% and 100% don't work, and that somewhere in the middle does.
Slashdot Mirror
The FCC disagrees with you. They say that since the web is not prodcast, it doesn't have to be censored. It's not about "protecting the children." It's about "not restricting the choices of the children". In other words, there are, what 12 over-the-air channels in VHF, + some number more in UHF. The point is that there aren't that many. And it's unfair to children to set aside some of those channels for adult use, as it restricts their choices. Which is why the restrictions get relaxed between 10 and 6, because kids should be in bed then.
Since the Internet does not have the same limitations on sites producing content, it should not be restricted. And that's the current FCC position.
This is true. Also, a very good QA person has to show the same kind of thinking as a programmer, when it comes to reporting bugs. In fact, if you are looking for work as a programmer, I would bring a good bug report with you. You risk ending up back in QA, but if you don't have very many coding samples from the real world, a story about how you pieced together the exact combination that produced a bug makes for good substitute.
Where did ad-supported or no porn come from. Neither is in the article as far as I could tell. The condition for buying a chunk of spectrum for cell phones was that a sliver be set aside for free wifi. This seems good.
No it doesn't. It censors indecent and profane things during the day (well, and obcenity... but that's only because the Supreme Court has ruled Obcenity as an exception to the first amendment.) That's because there are only so many channels and to not limit the access of children during the day. Since the same constraint doesn't apply to the web, there's no reason for the FCC to try to censor it, and it would be illegal unless congress changed the laws the FCC operates under.
I can go to the library and view porn... the government doesn't really try to censor the internet in my view (offer valid in US, void in China, other places I have no idea.) At least not as far as restricting what sites adults go to.
Windows
Windows 2.x
Windows 3.x
Win 95/98/2000
NT 4.0 [Merge from earlier numbering system]/XP/Server 2k3
Vista
Windows 7
95/98/2000 were just minor releases (4.0, 4.1, 4.2]. NT 4.0 was turned into the fifth version of the windows OS with XP.
Because for every one brilliant invention like the telephone, that is completely revolutionary, there are hundreds that seem obvious -- once you have been exposed to them.
Also, it's unfair for an inventor not to know the limits of patent law before they invest a lot of time/money in the application process.
Fixed that for you.
When the original poster said "Article", he meant "Summary" And it's not biased, it's just a slashdot summary.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about roof area. It will take more meters of film, I concede that, but it will be cheaper than making the films move. And it will fit more film per square meter on the roof.
No, it's drastically more efficent, see below.
For the love of all get out, the sun is traverses 180 degrees, with 170 or so not blocked by the earth. The angle of the sun to the flat panel determines efficency. A plane has one optimal normal. If a flat panel is arranged optimally, the normal and vector to the sun will coincide at high noon. A tube has infinite optimal normals, with more area exposed so that the math equates it to a grid with the same cross-section optimally positioned at any given point of time. Which makes the same area on the roof more efficent with the exception of like 5 minutes. Maybe 15.
The sides would produce less electricity per square inch. But as you pointed out, there are more square inches.
Yes, I refer to energy per surface area of the roof. Space seems to be the limiting factor.
The reason for the gaps is so that at extreme angles of incidence, the cells seem dense. For an optimal flat array at the extreme angle, the same gaps are required.
For those of us not lucky enough to live close to a pole, the Sun takes less than a year to move significantly accross the sky. Angle of incidence changing over time of day is far more important than angle changing over seasons, and far hard.
It's not misleading. Turning oneself in means delivering yourself into police custody, usually by driving down to the police station. This is opposed to the cops having to track you down. I don't believe it has anything to do with confessions.
I sit here on my XP box, typing on my left (1680x1050) high res monitor, and looking at my right ( 1280x1024) lower-res monitor. I can extend a video game across both monitors to run in 2960x1024 mode (wasting 26 rows of pixels on my big monitor) with DirectX keeping up.
YOu're not talking about efficenicy, you're talking about cost. What I said is the cylinder is just as efficent, which means it generates as much energy as somthing that takes up an equivalent footprint on your roof (if that flat panel is angled perfectly). Yes, it takes mroe solor cells to produce. However, you don't have to worry about angle of incidence.
I supposse there are two ways I was considering it to be more efficent: roof space is more limiting than total solar cells, and stationary is much better than moving parts. The 57% more cells probably saves at least that much because they never have to move.
It seems counterintuitive, but if you do the calculus, it ends up being equivalent. You get more surface area, but with less direct angle of incidence (assuming the plane is perfectly aligned), so that it exactly balances out. And you have to do less repositioning.
There's a name for the principle that states it generally, but I forgot it. I just remember having to walk my friend through the math two years ago when it came up in their physics class.
Kinda. What they are saying is that even with 0 load, the AC->DC adaptor still uses a bit of energy, so you have to actually unplug it to get the 1 watt savings. So, it's not the laptop per se that's using the energy, but what most people think of the adaptor as part of the computer, so included it is.
And I have shares of Blizzard, I want free WoW. I have shares of Apple, I want free OS X upgrades. I have shares of Microsoft, I want free copies of Vista and Office (feel free to throw out jokes about "why?" Short answer, I like security and I have Vista drivers for my hardware).
The tax payers do own it, and it is controlled by the taxpayers via their proxies in Washington/State Capital. Or sometimes, with software, the taxpayers only license some rights.
Huh? The costs of production for V-chips are ridiculously small (one the order of pennies per set), and thus going to be absorbed rather than changing the price from XXX9.99 to XX(X+1)0.04
Eh, what rights someone has is certainly a matter of opinion or argument. I would contend that all rights are designed to allow people to make and act upon informed choices. Requiring information to be available and accesible to make those choices seems like the role of government (for instance, I can trust the calorie content of my food because of the FDA). Extending that to television makes sense.
Yeah, the cost of a V-Chip was something like 5 cents per unit. Hardly worth caring about.
So go live in some practically uninhabited state/country. I want to live in a densely packed urban area. For some reason, you, who are so against government imposition, are trying to impose your anti-government beliefs on me. I want speed limits, an FCC, environmental and safety standards, because that's the only way a city can exist. Go live in bumblefuck, and no one will care enough to enforce the laws that you find so offensive.
I don't get why everyone digs EEE. When the extend the software, they do make it better. Right..? Right?!?
Who was? Answer that and I'll reply to you.
I'm an educated man, and I don't know that. I do know that the Berlin Olympics was televised, so the 30's or earlier.
You mean when he accidentally refered to Article II as Article I? He understood what the article he was quoting said.
You're two astrisked things are totally offbase. Universal healthcare does not imply you have to take advantage of it. And insurance is not gambling. It's removing risk. The difference is that in gambling you take a known outcome (dollar in your pocket) and replace it with an unknown outcome (2 dollars or zero dollars in your pocket). With insurance, you take an unknown outcome and replace it with a known. This can be thought of as either money in your pocket (reversed from my gambling example) or replacing a huge bad to one unknown person with a small bad to every person.
Keep the fruits and not buy healthcare are the asame. So are Choose treatments, and choose alternate treatments. Neither of which would be any worse than under an HMO. So in the later two arguments, really your only point is that the currently uninsured would have more options, but that would cost money. But I'm willing to bet that the currently uninsured are the ones who won't have to pay, so they will have more options.
And people who ned to choose whether to have healthcare for themselves or their children also fall into that category.
So all you're left with is a "my money is mine" argument. Which is a popular argument I admit, but far less insightful than your mods imply.
Instead, it seems to me to be kinda cheap and petty. When people are dying, I would say that those with the ability to help are morally required to.
That she disagrees with (assuming that since the Dred Scott and Plessy v. Furgession no longer apply, she disqualified them). Quick, what decisions do you disagree with? I can think of a couple, but all the ones I know the names of are from the 70's or before, and all the ones I think of to disagree with are more contemporary (or already named).
No, that's not the point. They cannot do personal things in the guise of their office. For instance, President Bush, as a person, can be racist (an example I believe untrue, but sprang to mind quickly). As President, however, he has to have a non-racist approach to running the executive.
The Rep. can maintained the linked in account, but without the offical presence of his office.
This rule doesn't affect whether Rep. X can put up YouTube videos of "My crazy weekend". He always could. But now he can put up videos saying "The US House of Representatives did X" with him speaking as part of his job.
But he must not use his those official communiques for personal, commerical or campaigning reasons.
Similar to how my work might allow youtube to host our official videos (currently, our site does it), but I still couldn't connect me to my company for political or personal reasons (or other commercial ventures.)
Especially with retail merchandise, companies worry about incentivizing employees to ding items, so they can get them for free.
Right now they are by law invested in US Treasury bonds. That's about as conservative an investment as you can get.
Also, your original question stated that teh accounts would be insured. What mechanism do you propose for that.
Okay, the people being taxed have already succeeded, so that they no longer need incentive (see arguments about retroactive extentions of copyrights). Those that are dreaming big are not likely to be detered because they A) have not yet been hit by the tax, so the impact is theoretical. Studies have shown that theoretical future costs are discounted far more than theoretical future benefits. B) It's still a huge increase over what they are making now. C) That money can be used to help small business owners become big enough to have to give back. D) It will cause people to get paid more for their current work (EX. A business can give its CEO $1 million more, and have each Sr. VP who thinks they will become CEO get 25% of the incentive. Or it can give a smaller bonus to each Sr. VP. If the $1 million is more taxed, then it becomes cheaper to give many small bonuses lower on the food chain). E) See the Laffer curve. There is no indication that it would not incentivize people more, because they want to hit some level of income after taxes. After all, the Laffer curve says that 0% and 100% don't work, and that somewhere in the middle does.