DC is a disaster and a half, with basically two competing school systems—a charter system and a normal public school system—each of which has about the same number of students. The charter schools are performing negligibly above the national average, and the public school system is performing significantly below it.
Recent studies showed that the charter schools got about $12k less per student than the public schools. Why are they doing better? Because the system itself is lightweight. Each charter school mostly runs itself. There's no huge overarching administrative organization. Mistakes at a school cost small amounts of money. Mistakes at a district level that apply to every school cost large amounts of money. Add to that problems like systemic corruption, and you have a recipe for failure. And as a result, when you pump more money into it, that money goes everywhere but into the schools themselves.
Eventually, I suspect that the charter schools will displace the public schools entirely, and at that point, the massive overhead problem will just go away, along with the school system itself. They can keep wanting more and more money to not fix the problem, but that's not going to save the system when the public votes to close it down entirely.
The civilian has consented to a search, which is entirely lawful. The officer has violated no rights of the civilian by then proceeding with the search.
Ah, but you are not giving up your rights. You are consenting to the search. That's not the same thing in the eyes of the courts. If they suddenly decide that searching the car isn't enough, and they want to subject you to a body cavity search, you have a legal right to refuse that expansion of the search. If you consent to a field sobriety test and fail it, you still have the right to refuse a breathalyzer test or blood test until the police get a warrant. And so on. There are limits, and you have a fundamental legal right to withdraw permission for a search at any time (United States v. Bily, United States v. Al Doc Ho, etc.).
Of course, the decisions in United States v. Herzbrun and others make this somewhat tricky when you're talking about airline travel, but until someone makes a federal case out of this, we won't know how the courts will handle it. However, I would argue that if you consent to a magnetometer check and consent to a pat down, and the agents refuse to allow the pat down and insist on a different means of screening, you are well within your rights to refuse such an outrageous expansion of the nature and invasiveness of the search. And if the courts disagree, then it is time to get new judges.
There are rights that you cannot forfeit, such as your freedom. You cannot willfully enter into a contract that makes you a slave to another person, for instance.The contract is unenforceable. But that's not what we're talking about here at all.
Actually, it is. The right to keep your own nude form private is just as fundamental a human right as the right to not be a slave. It is the right to maintain basic human dignity, and it is as fundamental and inalienable a right as the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As an aside, I find it deliciously ironic that we have this story about the TSA claiming that we don't have that right on the same day as a story from Germany where someone was forced to give up nude photos of his ex-girlfriend after they broke up. The stark contrast between the increasing freedom of Europe and the rising fascism in the United States should be downright terrifying to every American (and, for that matter, to people everywhere).
No, not at all. You waive your rights when you purchase your ticket, which is a voluntary act. By purchasing your ticket, you are agreeing to the conditions attached to it, which include submitting to a search. If you don't want to be searched, don't buy a ticket, and find another way to travel.
Oy. I really can't stand this argument. Yes, it's voluntary; just like having a bank account and a computer and a credit card and a job and a home are all voluntary. Maybe when people buy houses they should all be required to have surveillance cameras installed. Buying a home is voluntary, so if people don't like being watched they are free to simply not buy a house. Why not just search everyone walking down the street? After all, it's completely voluntary to walk down the street. No one is forcing you are they?
Yes, it is a completely fallacious argument. I can write anything I want to in a contract, up to and including you giving me your first-born child and your immortal soul, or terms that stipulate that if you back out of a contract, you agree to commit suicide within 72 hours or you must pay me 100% of your wages for the remainder of your natural life. That doesn't mean that such a contract would be enforceable. In this country, unconscionable contract terms are routinely thrown out by the courts, particularly in contracts of adhesion (which any airline ticket purchase is, by definition, because you are not permitted to negotiate the terms of carriage with the airline).
Furthermore, the right to travel (including the right to air travel) is a fundamental component of free speech and free assembly rights, which are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any government action that substantively abridges those rights (as, for example, requiring you to be virtually strip searched prior to boarding an airplane) is a blatantly unconstitutional act that must be overturned by the courts, or else the Bill of Rights has no meaning whatsoever. You cannot sign away your constitutional rights, period. The courts have been very consistent in voicing that opinion.
It probably is if the person has already paid a $500 nonrefundable fee for the phone call, and then as they enter your house, you tell them, "I have altered the deal. Pray I don't alter it further."
...the safe sort which uses Terahertz radiation...
There's a fair amount of evidence suggesting that these aren't safe, either. The expected fatality rate is smaller, but decidedly nonzero. Unfortunately, for the same reason that molecules of certain dangerous substances resonate in interesting ways, so do the molecules that make up human DNA.
Actually it does work. Study after study has proven that pumping more money into the weakest districts results in statistically significant improvements in graduation rates and other key metrics.
The problem with the DC school district is that it has one administrator per 128 students, give or take, as compared with the national average of almost 300 students per administrator. To improve education in the DC school district, you would have to pump in almost three times as much money as you would have to pump into almost any other school district in the nation, simply because the district is run so inefficiently to begin with.
Inclusivity isn't PC; it's generic. Or rather, it's not needlessly over-specific. If some fuckwit (e.g. you) were to write that he has to delete pictures of his ex-girlfriend, then some other fuckwit might then ask, "But this doesn't apply to ex-wives, right, since that was a different type of agreement?" or "This doesn't apply to ex-boyfriends, since dudes have different nudity standards," or other irrelevant bullshit.
Except that the distinction between a legal marriage and a mere relationship potentially does make a difference. If they had been married, in most countries, the wife would probably have be entitled to the rights to half of the photos as part of the divorce settlement, and could potentially have traded the other half for something else of comparable value (in either direction). So the generic "partner" actually loses important precision. That's why most people who are even remotely analytical find the term so incredibly annoying.
But I would almost certainly say that no, you would not get a refund from VISA for refusing to go through security screening, something you are implicitly agreeing to by obtaining a ticket in the first place.
Considering that by law, forcing someone to remove clothing involuntarily in any situation other than during an actual arrest constitutes first-degree sexual assault under color of law, and that everyone involved—the entire TSA chain of command, the airline and airport (for allowing the TSA to operate the checkpoint), etc.—would be subject to criminal charges if they ever forced someone to walk through one of those things, I would think that VISA would distance themselves from it as quickly as they possibly could to avoid being caught up in the massive legal retaliation from the affected person.
Until and unless we get competition in primary schooling, poor kids are going to keep getting ignored.
The problem is that nobody wants to teach in poor districts because of problems like gangs. To get good teachers into those schools requires paying way above the regional average. You're not going to get competition in those poorer areas no matter what you do, because there's no possibility of getting enough money into those districts to properly operate one school, much less two.
The closest you could get would be completely shutting down all the schools in poor districts and bussing the kids to other districts. Unfortunately, long bus rides are also correlated with poorer performance in school, so that doesn't fix the problem, either.
There's only one way to really improve schooling, and that's to put more money into the districts that are having the most trouble with test scores so that they can staff up.
At least Ford hasn't intentionally murdered people (that we know of yet) since the 1970s with the Pinto fiasco. GM intentionally murdered people as late as the mid-late 2000s with their ignition switch fiasco.
Ford Windstar owners from the late 90s and early 2000s are continuing to push Ford to do a safety recall on their ABS controllers because of solder joint failures caused by excess heat from proximity to some part of the engine, IIRC. I don't know how many deaths, if any, have resulted from ABS controller failures in those models, but I'd be willing to bet that it is nonzero.
Public schools in the US are beholden to teacher's unions, and teacher's unions are all about funneling dues collected from members into contributions to politicians who tend to do things that increase the power of the teacher's unions.
Sorry, but that's crap. Some of the worst schools in the U.S. are in states that have bans on teacher unions, e.g. most of the American South. Others are in some parts of heavily unionized states, such as California. And some of the best public schools are also in other parts of California, in spite of it being so heavily unionized. The general consensus is that there is no correlation whatsoever between unionization and quality of schools.
There are, however correlations between the quality of education and:
Teacher salaries. If you have to choose between teaching and a job in industry that pays twice as much, most of the best and the brightest won't choose to teach unless they really enjoy teaching.
Class size (inverse correlation). More individual attention—particularly in early grades that build the foundation for later learning—leads to better outcomes.
Language skills. In the U.S., an increasingly large percentage of poor people are not native English speakers, which has a double impact. First, they have a harder time learning because they're having to learn the language as they go. Second, the school district has to spend extra money to hire additional ESL teachers to help them get up to speed. The salary for those extra ESL teachers ends up reducing the pool of money available for everybody else, which means larger classes and lower overall teacher pay.
Note, however, that there is no inherent correlation between total spending and outcome. Pumping more money into failed school districts doesn't help if most of that money goes into administrator salaries, increased administration size, equipment purchasing, building construction, etc. However, experimentally, pumping extra money into struggling districts almost invariably improves education quality dramatically, for much the same reason that giving $1,000 to someone who just bought a new Tesla isn't likely to help that person nearly as much as giving that same amount of money to someone who is struggling to pay his or her electric bill.
Most likely a change in accounting assumptions in the depreciation and in what the agency decides to escrow for maintenance costs.
Actually, the most likely difference is in the number of drones that a single pilot is able to successfully manage versus the projected number. The thing about military drones is that they're designed to be mostly autonomous, with only periodic intervention whenever action is needed (e.g. shooting someone, examining images to determine whether someone is doing something that they shouldn't be, etc.). The cost of the human pilot is a fixed cost. If that pilot is managing (for example) four drones at any given time, the pilot portion of the cost per flight hour is a fourth as much as if the pilot is managing only one. If you divide the actual number of flight hours by the expected number, and multiply that by the expected cost per flight hour, you get $11,269, which is remarkably close to the actual cost per flight hour ($12,225). This doesn't explain the entire difference, but it does explain most of it.
The real questions folks should be asking are whether that number will improve with additional training, whether computers can be used to offload some of the work, etc.
Well, it is possible, but it requires making it hard enough to use that the government won't want to bother with it. For example, the company could place a private key in an escrow service offshore, destroy their only copy, and provide the public key to every device. The device could then encrypt a copy of its private key using the company's public key, which the company could print out on paper and store in boxes organized by date. If the government wanted a copy, they would have to provide the device ID, which the company would look up in a database. The company would then require a government official to be physically present while they go to the room, unlock the box, obtain the correct encrypted private key, carry it out of the locked room, send it overseas to be decrypted, receive the result, and deliver the key to the government.
In other words, make it so that the government would need to have probable cause, a proper search warrant for the device, and a few thousand dollars per key to cover the company's retrieval costs, plus a sizable bit of padding to defray the company's storage costs.
And don't even think about planting a flowerbed filled with poinsettias, oleanders, foxgloves, and azaleas right next to your neighbor's yard....
But seriously, if you have single-pane windows, moving to double-pane or triple-pane windows will do more than anything else you can do. And for maximum benefit, choose a window with a high STC number. You can also often get window inserts that add another pane of glass outside your existing windows, which can be cheaper than replacing everything.
You're apparently operating under the mistaken impression that the purpose of government is to keep you safe. In fact, government is principally a jobs program to reduce the number of unemployed people so that they don't rise up against the elite class, coupled with a handout program to fund various friends of whichever administration is in power at the time.
In my experience, the Campbell store is much more likely to actually have sufficient quantities of parts than either the Sunnyvale store or the San Jose store. YMMV, obviously. Sunnyvale is fine for wire, solder, and other really common bits, but for things like resistors, have your cell phone handy, because you're going to have to try three or four parallel resistance calculations to get you close enough to whatever standard value they're out of in whatever size you need, and you'll end up doing that over and over again, because (unless this has changed in the past few months) they typically have only about one part in stock for every ten hooks on the wall. I've never seen such inconsistent product stocking at any store that wasn't on the verge of bankruptcy, and it has been that way for at least the past several years.
And they never have a large enough quantity of components for even medium-sized projects. If I need more than about two of any component (or ten if I'm willing to buy out the entire stock of that component at Sunnyvale, San Jose, and Campbell), I invariably have to order from Mouser/DigiKey/JameCo/Newark. (And yes, I know that JameCo is in the Bay Area, but nobody in their right minds drives up the peninsula if they can help it unless they have a couple of hours to waste. Just saying.)
The server was set up so she can do all her dirty business deals outside the eyes of the federal watchdogd. A complete disregard of the law. She tried to hide her pay Bill to get favors criminal act. Not to mention the clintons history of anti women anti law pratices. Bill hangs out and visits known sex traficers . He went to the island but did not know what was going on.
Too incoherent to even respond to.
Nah, perfectly coherent. The server was set up so because the watchdog daemon process on the federal server kept rebooting while she did her deals. She tried to hide her paycheck stub in an effort to get congress to pass a law that favors criminals. Bill hangs out and visits people who have sex with members of the Trafice family. And he went to Hawaii stoned.
Linguistics is the study of language and how it is used. I'm telling you how that word is typically used by English speakers. How is that in any way misusing the word linguistics or narrowing its meaning?
You can certainly use the word "sugar" in any way that makes you happy. With that said, the convention of calling sucrose "sugar" evolved over hundreds of years, so using the uncountable (mass noun) form of the word "sugar" to describe something else other than sucrose will at least momentarily confuse even most of your most learned readers/listeners and will completely baffle everyone else. A characteristic of good communication is that it is not only correct, but also hard to misinterpret, and saying "HFCS is sugar" is likely to cause the overwhelming majority of people to say, "No it isn't," whereas saying "HFCS is a sugar" is likely to get agreement from anyone with even a basic understanding of science.
The increase in energy usage won't entirely go away by moving to electric, because the wind resistance will still increase as your speed does. With that said, the wind noise will be greatly improved by reducing the space between vehicles, as will the increased energy usage caused by drag.
Sorry, but linguistically speaking, you're incorrect. In English, the word "sugar" when used without an article or noun adjunct before it—that is, when it is used as a mass noun—is synonymous with table sugar (sucrose). High fructose corn syrup is a sugar, but it is not sugar.
An opinion piece at The Conversation questions the common belief that autonomous vehicles will easily solve a host of problems with road-based travel, including safety and traffic. "Assuming autonomous vehicles were one meter apart and traveling at 100 kilometers per hour (an aim that has been stated as the ultimate hope) this would mean around 25,000 people per hour could be taken down a freeway lane.
Just to put that in perspective, that's almost 35 times what is currently possible (~700 cars per freeway lane at that speed), and about an order of magnitude more than even the average flow of traffic on heavily congested freeways.
While impressive, this movement capacity is only half that of a train. But getting to this capacity means 100% of vehicles are under control of a guidance system, with none under independent control. As soon as one car does this, the whole system would slow down considerably, as is seen on freeways now." The writer argues that a better role for autonomous cars might be to take passengers to and from hubs for public transportation.
Not really true. As soon as there are enough cars on the roads under autonomous control, we could pass laws requiring that all human-driven cars keep to the right. That would allow traffic to flow freely at speed in every lane Except for the one late that would be slow anyway because of people entering and exiting. So autonomous cars would still result in speeds that are dramatically better than freeways today.
Also, self-driving cars won't just impact freeway driving. City streets are an underutilized resource in most cities, for two reasons. First, drivers don't want to be bothered with having to watch for pedestrians and other vehicles cutting out in front of them. Second, traffic lights are timed to keep cars from driving too fast, because drivers aren't good at watching for pedestrians, other vehicles, etc. Given enough vehicles communicating with a central scheduler, traffic lights could become a thing of the past, and vehicles could plan their turns in such a way that most vehicles don't even have to slow down, much less stop. This will dramatically improve the average speed on city streets (even without increasing the speed limit). (Note that this will likely require normal cars to get a small, inexpensive add-on box installed that identifies the vehicle as a manual vehicle, and if that box ever stops working, the driver will have to stop at every traffic light—all-ways-red by default—until it gets fixed, but that's pretty trivial.)
Moreover, if more of these autonomous vehicles take city streets instead of hopping onto the freeway for two exits, you'll have lower contention for the entry/exit lane, which by itself will improve traffic flow on the freeways by almost as much as reducing the inter-car spacing does. And the reduced backup when getting off of the highway onto city streets (by allowing automated vehicles to not stop at the traffic lights at the top of the exit unless there are manually-operated vehicles present) will further reduce contention on the freeways.
Further, the assumption that trains carry more passengers is not necessarily correct, as it likely discounts periods in which the trains are not full, periods when the trains don't have enough capacity to meet demand, signal light malfunctions, suicidally depressed people jumping out onto the tracks in front of the trains, and all the other joys that plague train travel. Unlike autonomous cars, which can quickly divert to alternate routes to avoid accidents that block the road, when there's only one passenger track pair and somebody jumps out in front of the train, all trains on that route either single-track past the accident scene or worse, stop outright for hours, and there's no way for trains to route around an accident except by transferring everyone to a slow, cumbersome bus bridge. Throughput falls through the floor. This is a huge disadvantage.
Yeah. I wrote that deprecation blurb for Apple back when 10.7 came out. It has probably been long enough that they can safely drop it, but if they do, it will still be interesting to see how many developers ignored the deprecation.:-)
Truth is, everyone on those versions has had plenty of warning and should have moved off years ago. The changes needed to use the newer versions are minimal and anyone complaining can afford the effort.
Well, sort of. This will be somewhat more interesting than usual, because Apple ships 0.9.8* on OS X and iOS. They were unable to upgrade, because it would break binary compatibility with shipping apps. So the question is whether Apple will back-port patches to their implementation manually or remove OpenSSL entirely and risk breaking apps.
Now obviously, Apple can afford the effort to back-port patches. However, it makes little sense that they would do so without contributing their changes upstream, and if they did so, then it makes little sense that OpenSSL wouldn't accept those changes, turn a build, and keep providing security fixes for 0.9.8, because it should be approximately zero effort for the OpenSSL team.
So this makes me suspect that Apple is going to finally break OpenSSL binary compatibility in 10.12 and iOS 10. Word to the wise: if your ancient app still inks against the deprecated OpenSSL library, it is probably time to bite t
Slashdot Mirror
DC is a disaster and a half, with basically two competing school systems—a charter system and a normal public school system—each of which has about the same number of students. The charter schools are performing negligibly above the national average, and the public school system is performing significantly below it.
Recent studies showed that the charter schools got about $12k less per student than the public schools. Why are they doing better? Because the system itself is lightweight. Each charter school mostly runs itself. There's no huge overarching administrative organization. Mistakes at a school cost small amounts of money. Mistakes at a district level that apply to every school cost large amounts of money. Add to that problems like systemic corruption, and you have a recipe for failure. And as a result, when you pump more money into it, that money goes everywhere but into the schools themselves.
Eventually, I suspect that the charter schools will displace the public schools entirely, and at that point, the massive overhead problem will just go away, along with the school system itself. They can keep wanting more and more money to not fix the problem, but that's not going to save the system when the public votes to close it down entirely.
Ah, but you are not giving up your rights. You are consenting to the search. That's not the same thing in the eyes of the courts. If they suddenly decide that searching the car isn't enough, and they want to subject you to a body cavity search, you have a legal right to refuse that expansion of the search. If you consent to a field sobriety test and fail it, you still have the right to refuse a breathalyzer test or blood test until the police get a warrant. And so on. There are limits, and you have a fundamental legal right to withdraw permission for a search at any time (United States v. Bily, United States v. Al Doc Ho, etc.).
Of course, the decisions in United States v. Herzbrun and others make this somewhat tricky when you're talking about airline travel, but until someone makes a federal case out of this, we won't know how the courts will handle it. However, I would argue that if you consent to a magnetometer check and consent to a pat down, and the agents refuse to allow the pat down and insist on a different means of screening, you are well within your rights to refuse such an outrageous expansion of the nature and invasiveness of the search. And if the courts disagree, then it is time to get new judges.
Actually, it is. The right to keep your own nude form private is just as fundamental a human right as the right to not be a slave. It is the right to maintain basic human dignity, and it is as fundamental and inalienable a right as the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As an aside, I find it deliciously ironic that we have this story about the TSA claiming that we don't have that right on the same day as a story from Germany where someone was forced to give up nude photos of his ex-girlfriend after they broke up. The stark contrast between the increasing freedom of Europe and the rising fascism in the United States should be downright terrifying to every American (and, for that matter, to people everywhere).
Yes, it is a completely fallacious argument. I can write anything I want to in a contract, up to and including you giving me your first-born child and your immortal soul, or terms that stipulate that if you back out of a contract, you agree to commit suicide within 72 hours or you must pay me 100% of your wages for the remainder of your natural life. That doesn't mean that such a contract would be enforceable. In this country, unconscionable contract terms are routinely thrown out by the courts, particularly in contracts of adhesion (which any airline ticket purchase is, by definition, because you are not permitted to negotiate the terms of carriage with the airline).
Furthermore, the right to travel (including the right to air travel) is a fundamental component of free speech and free assembly rights, which are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any government action that substantively abridges those rights (as, for example, requiring you to be virtually strip searched prior to boarding an airplane) is a blatantly unconstitutional act that must be overturned by the courts, or else the Bill of Rights has no meaning whatsoever. You cannot sign away your constitutional rights, period. The courts have been very consistent in voicing that opinion.
It probably is if the person has already paid a $500 nonrefundable fee for the phone call, and then as they enter your house, you tell them, "I have altered the deal. Pray I don't alter it further."
There's a fair amount of evidence suggesting that these aren't safe, either. The expected fatality rate is smaller, but decidedly nonzero. Unfortunately, for the same reason that molecules of certain dangerous substances resonate in interesting ways, so do the molecules that make up human DNA.
Actually it does work. Study after study has proven that pumping more money into the weakest districts results in statistically significant improvements in graduation rates and other key metrics.
The problem with the DC school district is that it has one administrator per 128 students, give or take, as compared with the national average of almost 300 students per administrator. To improve education in the DC school district, you would have to pump in almost three times as much money as you would have to pump into almost any other school district in the nation, simply because the district is run so inefficiently to begin with.
Except that the distinction between a legal marriage and a mere relationship potentially does make a difference. If they had been married, in most countries, the wife would probably have be entitled to the rights to half of the photos as part of the divorce settlement, and could potentially have traded the other half for something else of comparable value (in either direction). So the generic "partner" actually loses important precision. That's why most people who are even remotely analytical find the term so incredibly annoying.
Considering that by law, forcing someone to remove clothing involuntarily in any situation other than during an actual arrest constitutes first-degree sexual assault under color of law, and that everyone involved—the entire TSA chain of command, the airline and airport (for allowing the TSA to operate the checkpoint), etc.—would be subject to criminal charges if they ever forced someone to walk through one of those things, I would think that VISA would distance themselves from it as quickly as they possibly could to avoid being caught up in the massive legal retaliation from the affected person.
The problem is that nobody wants to teach in poor districts because of problems like gangs. To get good teachers into those schools requires paying way above the regional average. You're not going to get competition in those poorer areas no matter what you do, because there's no possibility of getting enough money into those districts to properly operate one school, much less two.
The closest you could get would be completely shutting down all the schools in poor districts and bussing the kids to other districts. Unfortunately, long bus rides are also correlated with poorer performance in school, so that doesn't fix the problem, either.
There's only one way to really improve schooling, and that's to put more money into the districts that are having the most trouble with test scores so that they can staff up.
Ford Windstar owners from the late 90s and early 2000s are continuing to push Ford to do a safety recall on their ABS controllers because of solder joint failures caused by excess heat from proximity to some part of the engine, IIRC. I don't know how many deaths, if any, have resulted from ABS controller failures in those models, but I'd be willing to bet that it is nonzero.
Sorry, but that's crap. Some of the worst schools in the U.S. are in states that have bans on teacher unions, e.g. most of the American South. Others are in some parts of heavily unionized states, such as California. And some of the best public schools are also in other parts of California, in spite of it being so heavily unionized. The general consensus is that there is no correlation whatsoever between unionization and quality of schools.
There are, however correlations between the quality of education and:
Note, however, that there is no inherent correlation between total spending and outcome. Pumping more money into failed school districts doesn't help if most of that money goes into administrator salaries, increased administration size, equipment purchasing, building construction, etc. However, experimentally, pumping extra money into struggling districts almost invariably improves education quality dramatically, for much the same reason that giving $1,000 to someone who just bought a new Tesla isn't likely to help that person nearly as much as giving that same amount of money to someone who is struggling to pay his or her electric bill.
Actually, the most likely difference is in the number of drones that a single pilot is able to successfully manage versus the projected number. The thing about military drones is that they're designed to be mostly autonomous, with only periodic intervention whenever action is needed (e.g. shooting someone, examining images to determine whether someone is doing something that they shouldn't be, etc.). The cost of the human pilot is a fixed cost. If that pilot is managing (for example) four drones at any given time, the pilot portion of the cost per flight hour is a fourth as much as if the pilot is managing only one. If you divide the actual number of flight hours by the expected number, and multiply that by the expected cost per flight hour, you get $11,269, which is remarkably close to the actual cost per flight hour ($12,225). This doesn't explain the entire difference, but it does explain most of it.
The real questions folks should be asking are whether that number will improve with additional training, whether computers can be used to offload some of the work, etc.
Neither is 4 Mbps down. The minimum downstream speed for broadband, according to FCC standards, is 25 Mbps down.
Well, it is possible, but it requires making it hard enough to use that the government won't want to bother with it. For example, the company could place a private key in an escrow service offshore, destroy their only copy, and provide the public key to every device. The device could then encrypt a copy of its private key using the company's public key, which the company could print out on paper and store in boxes organized by date. If the government wanted a copy, they would have to provide the device ID, which the company would look up in a database. The company would then require a government official to be physically present while they go to the room, unlock the box, obtain the correct encrypted private key, carry it out of the locked room, send it overseas to be decrypted, receive the result, and deliver the key to the government.
In other words, make it so that the government would need to have probable cause, a proper search warrant for the device, and a few thousand dollars per key to cover the company's retrieval costs, plus a sizable bit of padding to defray the company's storage costs.
In other words, build a soundproof box around the dog.
And don't even think about planting a flowerbed filled with poinsettias, oleanders, foxgloves, and azaleas right next to your neighbor's yard....
But seriously, if you have single-pane windows, moving to double-pane or triple-pane windows will do more than anything else you can do. And for maximum benefit, choose a window with a high STC number. You can also often get window inserts that add another pane of glass outside your existing windows, which can be cheaper than replacing everything.
You're apparently operating under the mistaken impression that the purpose of government is to keep you safe. In fact, government is principally a jobs program to reduce the number of unemployed people so that they don't rise up against the elite class, coupled with a handout program to fund various friends of whichever administration is in power at the time.
In my experience, the Campbell store is much more likely to actually have sufficient quantities of parts than either the Sunnyvale store or the San Jose store. YMMV, obviously. Sunnyvale is fine for wire, solder, and other really common bits, but for things like resistors, have your cell phone handy, because you're going to have to try three or four parallel resistance calculations to get you close enough to whatever standard value they're out of in whatever size you need, and you'll end up doing that over and over again, because (unless this has changed in the past few months) they typically have only about one part in stock for every ten hooks on the wall. I've never seen such inconsistent product stocking at any store that wasn't on the verge of bankruptcy, and it has been that way for at least the past several years.
And they never have a large enough quantity of components for even medium-sized projects. If I need more than about two of any component (or ten if I'm willing to buy out the entire stock of that component at Sunnyvale, San Jose, and Campbell), I invariably have to order from Mouser/DigiKey/JameCo/Newark. (And yes, I know that JameCo is in the Bay Area, but nobody in their right minds drives up the peninsula if they can help it unless they have a couple of hours to waste. Just saying.)
Nah, perfectly coherent. The server was set up so because the watchdog daemon process on the federal server kept rebooting while she did her deals. She tried to hide her paycheck stub in an effort to get congress to pass a law that favors criminals. Bill hangs out and visits people who have sex with members of the Trafice family. And he went to Hawaii stoned.
Wait, what?
Linguistics is the study of language and how it is used. I'm telling you how that word is typically used by English speakers. How is that in any way misusing the word linguistics or narrowing its meaning?
You can certainly use the word "sugar" in any way that makes you happy. With that said, the convention of calling sucrose "sugar" evolved over hundreds of years, so using the uncountable (mass noun) form of the word "sugar" to describe something else other than sucrose will at least momentarily confuse even most of your most learned readers/listeners and will completely baffle everyone else. A characteristic of good communication is that it is not only correct, but also hard to misinterpret, and saying "HFCS is sugar" is likely to cause the overwhelming majority of people to say, "No it isn't," whereas saying "HFCS is a sugar" is likely to get agreement from anyone with even a basic understanding of science.
The increase in energy usage won't entirely go away by moving to electric, because the wind resistance will still increase as your speed does. With that said, the wind noise will be greatly improved by reducing the space between vehicles, as will the increased energy usage caused by drag.
Sorry, but linguistically speaking, you're incorrect. In English, the word "sugar" when used without an article or noun adjunct before it—that is, when it is used as a mass noun—is synonymous with table sugar (sucrose). High fructose corn syrup is a sugar, but it is not sugar.
Just to put that in perspective, that's almost 35 times what is currently possible (~700 cars per freeway lane at that speed), and about an order of magnitude more than even the average flow of traffic on heavily congested freeways.
Not really true. As soon as there are enough cars on the roads under autonomous control, we could pass laws requiring that all human-driven cars keep to the right. That would allow traffic to flow freely at speed in every lane Except for the one late that would be slow anyway because of people entering and exiting. So autonomous cars would still result in speeds that are dramatically better than freeways today.
Also, self-driving cars won't just impact freeway driving. City streets are an underutilized resource in most cities, for two reasons. First, drivers don't want to be bothered with having to watch for pedestrians and other vehicles cutting out in front of them. Second, traffic lights are timed to keep cars from driving too fast, because drivers aren't good at watching for pedestrians, other vehicles, etc. Given enough vehicles communicating with a central scheduler, traffic lights could become a thing of the past, and vehicles could plan their turns in such a way that most vehicles don't even have to slow down, much less stop. This will dramatically improve the average speed on city streets (even without increasing the speed limit). (Note that this will likely require normal cars to get a small, inexpensive add-on box installed that identifies the vehicle as a manual vehicle, and if that box ever stops working, the driver will have to stop at every traffic light—all-ways-red by default—until it gets fixed, but that's pretty trivial.)
Moreover, if more of these autonomous vehicles take city streets instead of hopping onto the freeway for two exits, you'll have lower contention for the entry/exit lane, which by itself will improve traffic flow on the freeways by almost as much as reducing the inter-car spacing does. And the reduced backup when getting off of the highway onto city streets (by allowing automated vehicles to not stop at the traffic lights at the top of the exit unless there are manually-operated vehicles present) will further reduce contention on the freeways.
Further, the assumption that trains carry more passengers is not necessarily correct, as it likely discounts periods in which the trains are not full, periods when the trains don't have enough capacity to meet demand, signal light malfunctions, suicidally depressed people jumping out onto the tracks in front of the trains, and all the other joys that plague train travel. Unlike autonomous cars, which can quickly divert to alternate routes to avoid accidents that block the road, when there's only one passenger track pair and somebody jumps out in front of the train, all trains on that route either single-track past the accident scene or worse, stop outright for hours, and there's no way for trains to route around an accident except by transferring everyone to a slow, cumbersome bus bridge. Throughput falls through the floor. This is a huge disadvantage.
A
Yeah. I wrote that deprecation blurb for Apple back when 10.7 came out. It has probably been long enough that they can safely drop it, but if they do, it will still be interesting to see how many developers ignored the deprecation. :-)
Well, sort of. This will be somewhat more interesting than usual, because Apple ships 0.9.8* on OS X and iOS. They were unable to upgrade, because it would break binary compatibility with shipping apps. So the question is whether Apple will back-port patches to their implementation manually or remove OpenSSL entirely and risk breaking apps.
Now obviously, Apple can afford the effort to back-port patches. However, it makes little sense that they would do so without contributing their changes upstream, and if they did so, then it makes little sense that OpenSSL wouldn't accept those changes, turn a build, and keep providing security fixes for 0.9.8, because it should be approximately zero effort for the OpenSSL team.
So this makes me suspect that Apple is going to finally break OpenSSL binary compatibility in 10.12 and iOS 10. Word to the wise: if your ancient app still inks against the deprecated OpenSSL library, it is probably time to bite t