Basically, my argument does lead to a "everybody should eat algae" but I am not arguing that. I'm just saying we should pretend what we are doing is environmentally friendly.
(I assume you meant *shouldn't* pretend!)
Is this actually true? I mean, clearly the process isn't efficient, but does it really cause significant harm to the environment on a per capita basis? If so, how?
very few of the animals you eat are grazing animals. exceedingly few.
Most (I would guess all?) New Zealand sheep and cows are grazed. I believe this is also true in Australia, and presumably various other countries. (The reason is straightforward: we have far more land that is suitable for grazing than we do land that is suitable for harvesting.)
So the question becomes, how much meat would be available per capita if no animals were raised on land that could feasibly be harvested? I don't know the answer - but it certainly isn't zero.
Also, it was my understanding that even without the land currently used (directly or indirectly) to produce meat products there was plenty of land to feed everyone? Isn't there a huge surplus of virtually every kind of food?
Evans said that's not good enough. "There's no excuse for slow results."
Honestly - what's the rush? I don't see any practical reason why the results need to be in any sooner than, say, within a week from the election.
It sounds to me as if Councilor Evans would rather have an inaccurate result than a slow one. Well, I have good news for him - I can whip him up a random number generator, no trouble, and at a bargain price, too. Just think of it - all the inaccurate results he could ever want, there at his fingertips, with no waiting whatsoever!
Yes, it would. Gravity works at lightspeed also, so any gravitic effect on an observable object must be detectable at the observer, making the influencing object "observable".
Absolutely true. However, my guess is that what the original researchers really mean is that the "something" causing the dark flow is now outside of the observable Universe.
Just as we can't see anything that's fallen into a black hole, but might still be able to deduce its existence by the effect it had on objects in the past, we might be able to deduce the existence of something that has left our observable universe by the effect it had on other objects before it did.
Lawyers work for a client. They do not file suits on their own behalf. They follow the will of their clients. Blame the client.
Did you read the article? In this case, the suit is being filed on behalf of the lawyers (to be precise, the law firm) and presumably they're representing themselves.
But by the time your grades matter, you do have choices... or at least that's the way it works here.
If you aren't planning to take a particular subject any further, you could always repeat it next year if appropriate. If you are, then your grades this year don't really matter, do they?
I can see advantages to grading each half of the year separately, so if you are taking these grades to a potential employer they can see that you managed at least half the year satisfactorily. But issuing a deceptive single grade doesn't seem helpful.
If you're going to fail anyway, then anyone who isn't a total idiot is going to realize that putting any sort of effort in whatsoever is a big fat waste of time. There's no reward for that effort.
I suspect I'm missing something fundamental about the way the US school system works, but wouldn't it be more sensible to just let them drop the subject so they can concentrate on something they're doing better in?
This system, and again, implementation may not give this result, is designed so that if a kid screws up the first half of the year, that they still have the opportunity to at least pass if they work hard and apply themselves.
It would seem that the pass wouldn't be meaningful; they'd only have half the knowledge they needed to, e.g., pass an external exam, or actually work in the field in question.
(Needing to reboot daily to maintain performance is NOT acceptable. It means there is something wrong and rebooting is not a fix any more than adding oil to a car is a fix when the problem is that it is losing oil.)
For the record, it is not normal for Windows to lose performance if not rebooted daily - not since Windows ME, at any rate. This is likely to be caused by a third-party device driver or application.
i dunno. i think a lot of consumers would be able to see the idiocy in having the TransferJet feature automatically kick on just through a device's proximity.
you'll have family members constantly finding each other's text messages, address book, photos, and what not randomly showing up [...]
While I agree that it isn't likely that the technology would perform transfers completely automatically, it might well be designed so that you only need initiate the transfer from one of the devices. Seeing as you have to choose the content to transfer, it seems most likely that sending data will be a manual process but receiving it might well be automatic. Better than the other way around, of course, but still worrying.
Sure, I agree a short-range system is better than a long-range one in this context, but I'm concerned that it may create an exaggerated sense of security, which may lead to skimping in other areas which might be more effective.
Oh, well, ultimately it's all in the implementation.
obviously both devices still have to activate their TransferJet feature so you won't accidentally start a transfer just by brushing your cellphone against someone else's.
I hope so. But, if this is the case, the article doesn't make it clear.
I think what they mean is that the devices need to be within 3 cm of each other during the transfer so that someone can't walk up behind you while you're transferring to an intended target and intercept the transmission.
I'm left to wonder how an innocent device can distinguish between another innocent device 3cm away and a malicious device 1m away with a correspondingly more powerful signal. Certainly a sufficiently powerful antenna could still eavesdrop on the signal, so I hope it's encrypted.
A short 3cm transmission distance minimizes any risks of data theft.
I do hope there's a bit more to it than that. There are all sorts of situations in which someone could bring a hostile device within 3cm of (say) a mobile phone without being noticed. For a start, consider a commuter train during rush hour.
Oh, sure, that's another feasible option. Aren't Comcast offering any way for people to buy extra data? (If not, I bet they will, sooner or later.)
For what it's worth, the experience in New Zealand has been that most people don't like to pay per unit data, because it's hard to be sure how much you're using and you don't want to be faced with a bill at the end of the month you can't afford. The usual scheme nowadays is to cut bandwidth to modem speeds once a your cap has been reached, although you can usually buy extra capacity - the key is you have to specifically choose to spend the extra money, it doesn't happen automatically.
Oh, I wouldn't expect it to be real-time. My ISP provides usage records on a per-day basis, that's quite enough to keep track of where you are.
Of course I can't guarantee that Comcast will implement such a scheme, but it isn't that hard to do, and it would be worth it in terms of customer relations.
It could just as easily go the other way. If there is a customer backlash against Comcast for imposing limits, then ISPs won't be able to put limits for fear of losing customers, and ISPs will be forced to upgrade their networks to deal with both their heavy users and the increased use by normal users due to HD video and whatnot.
You're ignoring the sheer economics of the situation. The ISPs couldn't afford such an upgrade, at least not without raising their prices beyond the reach of the average household.
No doubt that Comcast should be able to upgrade the lines they have to allow *true* unlimited internet without throttling.
I don't believe this. You're talking about a huge amount of bandwidth, which means lots of equipment, cable, maintenance, and so on. I very much doubt that Comcast could provide dedicated bandwidth at anything like the rates they currently charge.
(No, I don't have the actual figures for Comcast's business, but here's one point of reference: on the order of a million dollars per annum for 10kbit/sec dedicated bandwidth. That was a few years ago, so the price will have dropped a bit since then, and it would be substantially cheaper in the urban US because of economies of scale - but even so I very much doubt it would be within the reach of the average household.)
Funny how it's only those companies that make money by charging for the delivery of TV and movies that seem to have issues with users using the kind of bandwidth needed to get TV and movies without them.
I think many if not most countries introduced caps a long time ago. In New Zealand I believe they arrived concurrent with the introduction of broadband. Basically, it just took the US providers longer than most to realize their business model was broken and that data caps were the only way to fix it.
I may be wrong. Internet service is subject to significant economies of scale, perhaps the population density in the US is high enough that unlimited data is still feasible... but I suspect not.
People that say, "this is reasonable" don't get it.
No, I don't think you get it. It costs a certain amount for them to be able to feed you a certain amount of data. At the moment they're on the brink of losing money, due to increasing numbers of very heavy users. They have these choices: (a) apply data caps; (b) radically increase their charges; (c) go bankrupt.
Personally I think (a) is the most reasonable option, YMMV.
[...] but I just got off the phone with them and they have no intentions of imposing any bandwidth limit on their customers.
It won't last. Not if they want to avoid bankruptcy.
Oh, hold on, do you mean 600kbit/sec? That works out to less than 200GB/month if I've done my math right, so that's comparable with Comcast's data cap.
Unless they've continuously been making less money for the last ten years, bandwidth is costing them less at the same rate.
Sure, and I'd expect the prices to go down and/or the data caps to go up accordingly - except that at present they may well be undercharging for a 250GB cap, so the prices/caps may stand pat for a while until the technology catches up with them.
... or was that your point? I thought you were suggesting they were being sneaky, perhaps I misunderstood.
If any good comes out of this, it is the fact that software as a service is no longer an effective option.
Out of curiosity more than disbelief, what sort of services are you thinking of here? I mean, when I hear "software as a service" I think of word processing and the like, which wouldn't put a dent in 250GB/month.
Don't get too comfortable. Unless you're willing to pay for dedicated bandwidth - very expensive - sooner or later all ISPs will have to either apply data caps or go bankrupt.
And, of course, there'll be a snowball effect; the more ISPs offer data caps, the more heavy users the remaining ISPs will get, and the less they'll be able to afford to subsidize them.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, my argument does lead to a "everybody should eat algae" but I am not arguing that. I'm just saying we should pretend what we are doing is environmentally friendly.
(I assume you meant *shouldn't* pretend!)
Is this actually true? I mean, clearly the process isn't efficient, but does it really cause significant harm to the environment on a per capita basis? If so, how?
uhhh... math fail.
very few of the animals you eat are grazing animals. exceedingly few.
Most (I would guess all?) New Zealand sheep and cows are grazed. I believe this is also true in Australia, and presumably various other countries. (The reason is straightforward: we have far more land that is suitable for grazing than we do land that is suitable for harvesting.)
So the question becomes, how much meat would be available per capita if no animals were raised on land that could feasibly be harvested? I don't know the answer - but it certainly isn't zero.
Also, it was my understanding that even without the land currently used (directly or indirectly) to produce meat products there was plenty of land to feed everyone? Isn't there a huge surplus of virtually every kind of food?
You can't pass a law saying the TV News cannot announce a winner based on their exit polls [...]
I don't see why not. In fact, you shouldn't even need a new law; announcing a winner before the results arrive is fraud.
Got to love this part:
Evans said that's not good enough. "There's no excuse for slow results."
Honestly - what's the rush? I don't see any practical reason why the results need to be in any sooner than, say, within a week from the election.
It sounds to me as if Councilor Evans would rather have an inaccurate result than a slow one. Well, I have good news for him - I can whip him up a random number generator, no trouble, and at a bargain price, too. Just think of it - all the inaccurate results he could ever want, there at his fingertips, with no waiting whatsoever!
Yes, it would. Gravity works at lightspeed also, so any gravitic effect on an observable object must be detectable at the observer, making the influencing object "observable".
Absolutely true. However, my guess is that what the original researchers really mean is that the "something" causing the dark flow is now outside of the observable Universe.
Just as we can't see anything that's fallen into a black hole, but might still be able to deduce its existence by the effect it had on objects in the past, we might be able to deduce the existence of something that has left our observable universe by the effect it had on other objects before it did.
Lawyers work for a client. They do not file suits on their own behalf. They follow the will of their clients. Blame the client.
Did you read the article? In this case, the suit is being filed on behalf of the lawyers (to be precise, the law firm) and presumably they're representing themselves.
But by the time your grades matter, you do have choices ... or at least that's the way it works here.
If you aren't planning to take a particular subject any further, you could always repeat it next year if appropriate. If you are, then your grades this year don't really matter, do they?
I can see advantages to grading each half of the year separately, so if you are taking these grades to a potential employer they can see that you managed at least half the year satisfactorily. But issuing a deceptive single grade doesn't seem helpful.
If you're going to fail anyway, then anyone who isn't a total idiot is going to realize that putting any sort of effort in whatsoever is a big fat waste of time. There's no reward for that effort.
I suspect I'm missing something fundamental about the way the US school system works, but wouldn't it be more sensible to just let them drop the subject so they can concentrate on something they're doing better in?
This system, and again, implementation may not give this result, is designed so that if a kid screws up the first half of the year, that they still have the opportunity to at least pass if they work hard and apply themselves.
It would seem that the pass wouldn't be meaningful; they'd only have half the knowledge they needed to, e.g., pass an external exam, or actually work in the field in question.
(Needing to reboot daily to maintain performance is NOT acceptable. It means there is something wrong and rebooting is not a fix any more than adding oil to a car is a fix when the problem is that it is losing oil.)
For the record, it is not normal for Windows to lose performance if not rebooted daily - not since Windows ME, at any rate. This is likely to be caused by a third-party device driver or application.
i dunno. i think a lot of consumers would be able to see the idiocy in having the TransferJet feature automatically kick on just through a device's proximity.
you'll have family members constantly finding each other's text messages, address book, photos, and what not randomly showing up [...]
While I agree that it isn't likely that the technology would perform transfers completely automatically, it might well be designed so that you only need initiate the transfer from one of the devices. Seeing as you have to choose the content to transfer, it seems most likely that sending data will be a manual process but receiving it might well be automatic. Better than the other way around, of course, but still worrying.
Sure, I agree a short-range system is better than a long-range one in this context, but I'm concerned that it may create an exaggerated sense of security, which may lead to skimping in other areas which might be more effective.
Oh, well, ultimately it's all in the implementation.
obviously both devices still have to activate their TransferJet feature so you won't accidentally start a transfer just by brushing your cellphone against someone else's.
I hope so. But, if this is the case, the article doesn't make it clear.
I think what they mean is that the devices need to be within 3 cm of each other during the transfer so that someone can't walk up behind you while you're transferring to an intended target and intercept the transmission.
I'm left to wonder how an innocent device can distinguish between another innocent device 3cm away and a malicious device 1m away with a correspondingly more powerful signal. Certainly a sufficiently powerful antenna could still eavesdrop on the signal, so I hope it's encrypted.
A short 3cm transmission distance minimizes any risks of data theft.
I do hope there's a bit more to it than that. There are all sorts of situations in which someone could bring a hostile device within 3cm of (say) a mobile phone without being noticed. For a start, consider a commuter train during rush hour.
Oh, sure, that's another feasible option. Aren't Comcast offering any way for people to buy extra data? (If not, I bet they will, sooner or later.)
For what it's worth, the experience in New Zealand has been that most people don't like to pay per unit data, because it's hard to be sure how much you're using and you don't want to be faced with a bill at the end of the month you can't afford. The usual scheme nowadays is to cut bandwidth to modem speeds once a your cap has been reached, although you can usually buy extra capacity - the key is you have to specifically choose to spend the extra money, it doesn't happen automatically.
Do you mean "data usage" when you say "bandwidth"?
Oh, I wouldn't expect it to be real-time. My ISP provides usage records on a per-day basis, that's quite enough to keep track of where you are.
Of course I can't guarantee that Comcast will implement such a scheme, but it isn't that hard to do, and it would be worth it in terms of customer relations.
It could just as easily go the other way. If there is a customer backlash against Comcast for imposing limits, then ISPs won't be able to put limits for fear of losing customers, and ISPs will be forced to upgrade their networks to deal with both their heavy users and the increased use by normal users due to HD video and whatnot.
You're ignoring the sheer economics of the situation. The ISPs couldn't afford such an upgrade, at least not without raising their prices beyond the reach of the average household.
No doubt that Comcast should be able to upgrade the lines they have to allow *true* unlimited internet without throttling.
I don't believe this. You're talking about a huge amount of bandwidth, which means lots of equipment, cable, maintenance, and so on. I very much doubt that Comcast could provide dedicated bandwidth at anything like the rates they currently charge.
(No, I don't have the actual figures for Comcast's business, but here's one point of reference: on the order of a million dollars per annum for 10kbit/sec dedicated bandwidth. That was a few years ago, so the price will have dropped a bit since then, and it would be substantially cheaper in the urban US because of economies of scale - but even so I very much doubt it would be within the reach of the average household.)
Funny how it's only those companies that make money by charging for the delivery of TV and movies that seem to have issues with users using the kind of bandwidth needed to get TV and movies without them.
I think many if not most countries introduced caps a long time ago. In New Zealand I believe they arrived concurrent with the introduction of broadband. Basically, it just took the US providers longer than most to realize their business model was broken and that data caps were the only way to fix it.
I may be wrong. Internet service is subject to significant economies of scale, perhaps the population density in the US is high enough that unlimited data is still feasible ... but I suspect not.
They should be able to provide this information via their web site. Certainly ISPs in New Zealand do so.
People that say, "this is reasonable" don't get it.
No, I don't think you get it. It costs a certain amount for them to be able to feed you a certain amount of data. At the moment they're on the brink of losing money, due to increasing numbers of very heavy users. They have these choices: (a) apply data caps; (b) radically increase their charges; (c) go bankrupt.
Personally I think (a) is the most reasonable option, YMMV.
[...] but I just got off the phone with them and they have no intentions of imposing any bandwidth limit on their customers.
It won't last. Not if they want to avoid bankruptcy.
Oh, hold on, do you mean 600kbit/sec? That works out to less than 200GB/month if I've done my math right, so that's comparable with Comcast's data cap.
Unless they've continuously been making less money for the last ten years, bandwidth is costing them less at the same rate.
Sure, and I'd expect the prices to go down and/or the data caps to go up accordingly - except that at present they may well be undercharging for a 250GB cap, so the prices/caps may stand pat for a while until the technology catches up with them.
If any good comes out of this, it is the fact that software as a service is no longer an effective option.
Out of curiosity more than disbelief, what sort of services are you thinking of here? I mean, when I hear "software as a service" I think of word processing and the like, which wouldn't put a dent in 250GB/month.
Don't get too comfortable. Unless you're willing to pay for dedicated bandwidth - very expensive - sooner or later all ISPs will have to either apply data caps or go bankrupt.
And, of course, there'll be a snowball effect; the more ISPs offer data caps, the more heavy users the remaining ISPs will get, and the less they'll be able to afford to subsidize them.