You're mixing up US traffic and UK traffic. A big difference (and not because one of them is driving on the wrong side of the road). European drivers are generally better than US drivers (much better traffic schools, for starters - if you still don't believe me, check the accident rates: accidents or deaths per distance travelled).
In Europe, many roads don't have markings to begin with. Plenty of 80 km/hr roads that have no road markings whatsoever. Problem with that? Start learning to drive properly. Or adjust your speed. That you're allowed 80 km/hr doesn't mean you should. That your car is capable of speeding, doesn't mean you should.
Same with pretty much all other aircraft; if your engine fails right after takeoff in a regular plane you're bound to crash just as hard, if not harder.
Autogyro (engine off) landings are a routine maneuver for heli pilots, see a.o. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (search "helicopter landing without engine" on youtube for thousands of results).
The mileage difference account only for a factor of 2. How about the other factor of 22 to get from 1 to 44 MJ/kg? I can't imagine the batteries weigh 22 times as much as a fuel tank.
Synthesising fuel oil may be more expensive than pumping it up from the ground - the Fischer-Tropsch is what kept the Nazi's war effort going (sorry for the unintended Godwin of this thread). It's not that inefficient, really. It's just that oil is and always has been so crazy cheap that very little research has been done in these processes. I'm sure given the need producing carbon based fuel oil using solar/hydro/wind power will not cost that much more than using fossil fuels.
If an engine on heliocopter fails - it's time to crash.
And that's just not true. When the helicopter's engine fails, the pilot will disconnect the rotor and go into autogyro mode, basically becoming a glider. The rotors don't lose all their lift - look up autogyros, a kind of aircraft with unpowered rotor and vertical landing ability - but continue to rotate and allow for a very smooth landing. The main problem is less control (steering) and little choice of landing spots. Given a spot to land (a field is enough, water works great as well) a helicopter can make a perfectly smooth emergency landing without engine power.
You call it "basic stats" but to do statistics you need hard data to work with, which is probably really hard to get on for such a subject.
First of all, how do you define your data points? Which factors are you looking at, and how do you quantify them? Are you sure you don't forget about any factors, like how many oranges a person eats per day? Or are you really sure that eating oranges is not in any way related to how many video games one plays? For a really sound study all that has to be taken into account, and when there is a correlation found that's only a first step. Causation still needs to be established.
When examining depression among shoot-em-up players, there was evidence for increased risk before the researchers controlled for all the confounding factors, but not afterwards.
This makes it sound like playing lots of video games is a effect of depression rather than the cause. Which sounds just as plausible to me than it being the other way around. Just like people already at risk of social withdrawal, for them video games can be a great time killer.
Most countries where one would need such a surge protector, I wouldn't trust on having those things available - or if available, being of good quality.
5 GHz is a pretty high speed, and physics come in play. At that speed, a signal can travel less than 6 cm within a single clock pulse (almost 6 cm based on vacuum). At die sizes of around 10x20 mm, the signal takes a significant part of a pulse to reach its destination after which the transistors still have to make the switch.
This is even more of an issue for the communication between the CPU and the memory, which is often located further away. Distance becomes an issue, even at light speed, at those short intervals.
LOL. My claim is based on a bit more mundane observation that on my whacky bike I leave most of the locals on their fancy road bikes in my wake. And I'm not even trying.
Well, with my puny cantilever brakes and cheap brake pads I can't move my rear wheel when applying full force. My power output should be towards 300 W (average 220W I've seen, and I'm quite sure I'm above average, though far from the 500W these athletes can do). It takes less distance to stop than to accelerate even using just the rear brake, and the front brake has more stopping power. So my brakes are certainly stronger than me, and I'm certainly stronger than whatever motor they can build into those bikes.
Now I know I am mixing up torque and power, but more available power generally translates into higher available torque, so the two are somewhat linked.
At least as serious a risk: genuine devices mis-identified as counterfeits.
Furthermore, this checking code is extra code, and may have bugs that affects the normal working of the software. It may have security issues. There may be so many things wrong with it. More code means more places for bugs to hide, more possible security issues, more work for the software maintainers, etc. All that for code that's not much if anything useful!
Or do it like doping tests: random through the field, and the winners. Same for the bikes. Have the winner hand in their bike for inspection after the race, and do random checks before or after the race of the others.
TFA mentions the organisation has equipment to test for this, without going into detail on how. I'm curious how they test these bikes, what this equipment looks for really.
I doubt you could build a motor and power supply into a bike such that it couldn't be found.
That part I agree, but it's not about being unable to be found. It's about getting away with it, and that means making sure it's not visible or at the very least not obvious from the outside. That is a much simpler problem to solve and I can imagine it can be done. No, it's not cheap, but money isn't a big issue in a cycling. There's a lot of it, especially for the winner, so the potential payout is huge.
Those motors allegedly do about 100 watts. The amount of energy a normal bicycle brake can handle to slow you down is easily 1000 W - my bike can stop in a fraction of the distance it takes me to accelerate - and these pro bikers have for sure much better brakes than my city bike.
That she couldn't stop is not likely caused by such a puny motor. It's more likely good old brake failure, or a surface that was more slippery than she anticipated.
It's probably easier than finding a justification that it "keeps out them terrorists" or something like that. Had it been civilian, they'd probably asked for extra funding "to stop the kiddie porn" or otherwise "to protect the children".
If you want to end spam, you need to acknowledge that spam is an economic problem and spammers send out spam because they make money doing it.
So how are you going to do this? You do get modded "insightful" for this but in true business fashion you don't give any real solutions. Not even any hints to real solutions.Not even a solid and workable definition of what is spam, and what is not. Often spam is defined as "unsolicited' but what is "unsolicited" really? I put my e-mail address on my web site, asking people to contact me. Anyone can find the address and start sending e-mails on any topic - are these solicited or unsolicited? If you say it's solicited when about the web site, then when are they off topic?
Next, how are you going to distinguish a "spammer" making money off the e-mail messages from all the rest making money off of e-mail? So many legitimate news letters being sent around that result in making money. I have received many e-mails from people I didn't know yet asking me about my business, and whom I ended up doing business with - having found my contact in many different ways, e.g. from my listing at alibaba, which is also a common source of suspected scam e-mails.
Obviously a whitelist approach doesn't work.
Having people pay for sending/receiving e-mail doesn't work: who are you going to pay to? How are you going to pay? How to exchange payment information?
Maybe you can come up with working solutions to this. Solutions that only stop spammers (oh, and a clear definition of "spammer" would be good), but that leaves all other e-mail correspondence unaffected.
Actually Hotmail/Outlook etc have a pretty bad false positive rate. For my clients, I have far more complaints abut personal email from my server being redirected to the Junk folder from Hotmail users than from any other provider
I've had the same problem, it seems they're very rigorous on SPF records. I had nothing set for my domains, and that's apparently bad for Hotmail specifically. After sending a bunch or mails to Hotmail I actually got some bounces, where in the headers I noticed SPF checks failing (for reason of no records present). Recently I changed this, and I'm getting more replies to e-mail to Hotmail already.
Now it's very very hard to do any true statistics here, it does seem to be (part of) the issue of my e-mails not arriving, or being junked.
Interestingly, here it's Greenpeace's bias that gives it more credibility to me.
Greenpeace isn't stupid, on the contrary. They're pretty smart in progressing their cause and when it comes to publicity. They have to, the organisation lives and dies with publicity and the resulting donations. They're not a mouthpiece of the Chinese government, and in general I don't think they're very supportive of the Chinese government considering its less than stellar environmental record. Yet they choose to publish this data (in favour of the Chinese government) rather than this OCO2 data (which is not in favour of the Chinese government - and which, by the way, is a name I've never heard of before).
Economic data is generally considered suspect - the lower level the government, the more suspect. Generally no province will report lower growth numbers than the national average. No city lower than the province. No county lower than the city. However many economists will look at power production data, rail transport data, and sea port data. Those numbers are considered sufficiently reliable, and indeed do seem to give a very accurate picture of the overall economy. They do at least correlate quite well with other information, including anecdotal evidence and the PMI (purchase manager's index).
General economic growth figures, especially that coming from the lower government, falls into the "the chocolate ratio has been increased to 25 grammes a person a week" category.
Existing laws probably cover that already. A driver has to be properly insured by law in most countries. If they take paying passengers, and their insurance doesn't allow this, they're not properly insured and for that reason in breach of the law.
Uber protects at least the passenger by providing a back-up insurance when the driver has a passenger in the car. However that apparently doesn't cover the time the Uber driver is active as driver, but not carrying a passenger - e.g. when on the way to a pick-up - leaving the driver still at risk. Of course that's no problem for Uber, as all they care about is passengers, which are their paying customers.
Slashdot Mirror
You're forgetting about politics, and the other human factors that are involved here. It's more than about pure economics.
$1 per week is just over $4 a month. No idea how you come up with that $50/month number.
Their fee for the online magazine is less than that of the print version.
Now we have roundabouts. They work even better than traffic lights for most intersections. Far less accidents and a smoother overall traffic flow.
You're mixing up US traffic and UK traffic. A big difference (and not because one of them is driving on the wrong side of the road). European drivers are generally better than US drivers (much better traffic schools, for starters - if you still don't believe me, check the accident rates: accidents or deaths per distance travelled).
In Europe, many roads don't have markings to begin with. Plenty of 80 km/hr roads that have no road markings whatsoever. Problem with that? Start learning to drive properly. Or adjust your speed. That you're allowed 80 km/hr doesn't mean you should. That your car is capable of speeding, doesn't mean you should.
Same with pretty much all other aircraft; if your engine fails right after takeoff in a regular plane you're bound to crash just as hard, if not harder.
Autogyro (engine off) landings are a routine maneuver for heli pilots, see a.o. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (search "helicopter landing without engine" on youtube for thousands of results).
The mileage difference account only for a factor of 2. How about the other factor of 22 to get from 1 to 44 MJ/kg? I can't imagine the batteries weigh 22 times as much as a fuel tank.
Synthesising fuel oil may be more expensive than pumping it up from the ground - the Fischer-Tropsch is what kept the Nazi's war effort going (sorry for the unintended Godwin of this thread). It's not that inefficient, really. It's just that oil is and always has been so crazy cheap that very little research has been done in these processes. I'm sure given the need producing carbon based fuel oil using solar/hydro/wind power will not cost that much more than using fossil fuels.
If an engine on heliocopter fails - it's time to crash.
And that's just not true. When the helicopter's engine fails, the pilot will disconnect the rotor and go into autogyro mode, basically becoming a glider. The rotors don't lose all their lift - look up autogyros, a kind of aircraft with unpowered rotor and vertical landing ability - but continue to rotate and allow for a very smooth landing. The main problem is less control (steering) and little choice of landing spots. Given a spot to land (a field is enough, water works great as well) a helicopter can make a perfectly smooth emergency landing without engine power.
You call it "basic stats" but to do statistics you need hard data to work with, which is probably really hard to get on for such a subject.
First of all, how do you define your data points? Which factors are you looking at, and how do you quantify them? Are you sure you don't forget about any factors, like how many oranges a person eats per day? Or are you really sure that eating oranges is not in any way related to how many video games one plays? For a really sound study all that has to be taken into account, and when there is a correlation found that's only a first step. Causation still needs to be established.
Exactly.
When examining depression among shoot-em-up players, there was evidence for increased risk before the researchers controlled for all the confounding factors, but not afterwards.
This makes it sound like playing lots of video games is a effect of depression rather than the cause. Which sounds just as plausible to me than it being the other way around. Just like people already at risk of social withdrawal, for them video games can be a great time killer.
Most countries where one would need such a surge protector, I wouldn't trust on having those things available - or if available, being of good quality.
5 GHz is a pretty high speed, and physics come in play. At that speed, a signal can travel less than 6 cm within a single clock pulse (almost 6 cm based on vacuum). At die sizes of around 10x20 mm, the signal takes a significant part of a pulse to reach its destination after which the transistors still have to make the switch.
This is even more of an issue for the communication between the CPU and the memory, which is often located further away. Distance becomes an issue, even at light speed, at those short intervals.
LOL. My claim is based on a bit more mundane observation that on my whacky bike I leave most of the locals on their fancy road bikes in my wake. And I'm not even trying.
Well, with my puny cantilever brakes and cheap brake pads I can't move my rear wheel when applying full force. My power output should be towards 300 W (average 220W I've seen, and I'm quite sure I'm above average, though far from the 500W these athletes can do). It takes less distance to stop than to accelerate even using just the rear brake, and the front brake has more stopping power. So my brakes are certainly stronger than me, and I'm certainly stronger than whatever motor they can build into those bikes.
Now I know I am mixing up torque and power, but more available power generally translates into higher available torque, so the two are somewhat linked.
At least as serious a risk: genuine devices mis-identified as counterfeits.
Furthermore, this checking code is extra code, and may have bugs that affects the normal working of the software. It may have security issues. There may be so many things wrong with it. More code means more places for bugs to hide, more possible security issues, more work for the software maintainers, etc. All that for code that's not much if anything useful!
In many sports (including cycling) it's already the top-3 or top-something that's tested for doping. Not just the #1. I didn't write it up properly.
Or do it like doping tests: random through the field, and the winners. Same for the bikes. Have the winner hand in their bike for inspection after the race, and do random checks before or after the race of the others.
TFA mentions the organisation has equipment to test for this, without going into detail on how. I'm curious how they test these bikes, what this equipment looks for really.
I doubt you could build a motor and power supply into a bike such that it couldn't be found.
That part I agree, but it's not about being unable to be found. It's about getting away with it, and that means making sure it's not visible or at the very least not obvious from the outside. That is a much simpler problem to solve and I can imagine it can be done. No, it's not cheap, but money isn't a big issue in a cycling. There's a lot of it, especially for the winner, so the potential payout is huge.
Those motors allegedly do about 100 watts. The amount of energy a normal bicycle brake can handle to slow you down is easily 1000 W - my bike can stop in a fraction of the distance it takes me to accelerate - and these pro bikers have for sure much better brakes than my city bike.
That she couldn't stop is not likely caused by such a puny motor. It's more likely good old brake failure, or a surface that was more slippery than she anticipated.
It's probably easier than finding a justification that it "keeps out them terrorists" or something like that. Had it been civilian, they'd probably asked for extra funding "to stop the kiddie porn" or otherwise "to protect the children".
If you want to end spam, you need to acknowledge that spam is an economic problem and spammers send out spam because they make money doing it.
So how are you going to do this? You do get modded "insightful" for this but in true business fashion you don't give any real solutions. Not even any hints to real solutions.Not even a solid and workable definition of what is spam, and what is not. Often spam is defined as "unsolicited' but what is "unsolicited" really? I put my e-mail address on my web site, asking people to contact me. Anyone can find the address and start sending e-mails on any topic - are these solicited or unsolicited? If you say it's solicited when about the web site, then when are they off topic?
Next, how are you going to distinguish a "spammer" making money off the e-mail messages from all the rest making money off of e-mail? So many legitimate news letters being sent around that result in making money. I have received many e-mails from people I didn't know yet asking me about my business, and whom I ended up doing business with - having found my contact in many different ways, e.g. from my listing at alibaba, which is also a common source of suspected scam e-mails.
Obviously a whitelist approach doesn't work.
Having people pay for sending/receiving e-mail doesn't work: who are you going to pay to? How are you going to pay? How to exchange payment information?
Maybe you can come up with working solutions to this. Solutions that only stop spammers (oh, and a clear definition of "spammer" would be good), but that leaves all other e-mail correspondence unaffected.
Actually Hotmail/Outlook etc have a pretty bad false positive rate. For my clients, I have far more complaints abut personal email from my server being redirected to the Junk folder from Hotmail users than from any other provider
I've had the same problem, it seems they're very rigorous on SPF records. I had nothing set for my domains, and that's apparently bad for Hotmail specifically. After sending a bunch or mails to Hotmail I actually got some bounces, where in the headers I noticed SPF checks failing (for reason of no records present). Recently I changed this, and I'm getting more replies to e-mail to Hotmail already.
Now it's very very hard to do any true statistics here, it does seem to be (part of) the issue of my e-mails not arriving, or being junked.
Interestingly, here it's Greenpeace's bias that gives it more credibility to me.
Greenpeace isn't stupid, on the contrary. They're pretty smart in progressing their cause and when it comes to publicity. They have to, the organisation lives and dies with publicity and the resulting donations. They're not a mouthpiece of the Chinese government, and in general I don't think they're very supportive of the Chinese government considering its less than stellar environmental record. Yet they choose to publish this data (in favour of the Chinese government) rather than this OCO2 data (which is not in favour of the Chinese government - and which, by the way, is a name I've never heard of before).
Economic data is generally considered suspect - the lower level the government, the more suspect. Generally no province will report lower growth numbers than the national average. No city lower than the province. No county lower than the city. However many economists will look at power production data, rail transport data, and sea port data. Those numbers are considered sufficiently reliable, and indeed do seem to give a very accurate picture of the overall economy. They do at least correlate quite well with other information, including anecdotal evidence and the PMI (purchase manager's index).
General economic growth figures, especially that coming from the lower government, falls into the "the chocolate ratio has been increased to 25 grammes a person a week" category.
Existing laws probably cover that already. A driver has to be properly insured by law in most countries. If they take paying passengers, and their insurance doesn't allow this, they're not properly insured and for that reason in breach of the law.
Uber protects at least the passenger by providing a back-up insurance when the driver has a passenger in the car. However that apparently doesn't cover the time the Uber driver is active as driver, but not carrying a passenger - e.g. when on the way to a pick-up - leaving the driver still at risk. Of course that's no problem for Uber, as all they care about is passengers, which are their paying customers.