We have to pay for this monster to live for the rest of his life. We *all* pay taxes for that. It's expensive. Tell me how that doesn't affect us. A death-row inmate costs, what, $50-75-100K/yr to house and feed? We get no value from this. This is akin to toxic waste disposal. How many doctors, teachers, scientists can we hire for the amount of money we pay to house these people? How much further would we be as a society if we spent the money on getting ahead, not waste disposal
There are approximately 3,000 people on death row. I would imagine a liberal estimate, if we never killed any, would put mayby 10,000 people that might otherwise, eventually, be executed in prison for life.
As of 2011, there were 2,300,000 people in pirson.
So to answer your question as a percentage: We could save less than 00.5% of our prison budget... assuming executations themselves add $0 cost to the process, and assuming that those executions were carried out before even the trial happened. If you have trials, and waits, and there's a cost to the execution: we save less still.
And remember: these are based on grossly liberal estimates. If I just use current numbers, the savings is closer to 00.1% before lowerign it further with execution costs.
How about you drop the pretense that the issue is cost?
Check the IETF standards discussions for IPv6 and HTTP back in the 1990s. You might see that I've been groking (and designing) this internet thing for a while.
Openeing your response by poinding the table is not a good sign. (I started in the 1980s, so I win)
Where you're being tricked is that you don't realize Netflix is basically just asking for free web hosting. Free hosting for the highest bandwidth site in the world. Netflix is NOT a peer of Verizon, so their attempt to call their upstream connection "peering" is misleading.
You pay Verizon to connect YOU to the internet. Netflix wants to pay nobody to connect them to the internet. They wanted Verizon to provide them with free bandwidth by providing multi-gigabit connections for free. Sorry Netflix, if you want gigabits of upstream bandwidth you have to pay for it, just like the rest of us.
Actually: I pay Verizon for a connection to NetFlix. It's not something Verizon is being asked to provide for free.
Cogent (which has one of the highest-ranked connectivity degrees on the Internet) is who Verizon is failing to peer sufficiently with. They are not providing me the connectivity to the internet which I am paying them to provide. They likely would be falling over themselves to do so (perhaps going so far as to offer NetFlix that free access you assert) were they losing customers to other services that did offer such connectivity... but because of the duopoly, there's no competition for them to lose to.
For comparison: See Google Fiber's performance with NetFlix.
Let's take this to an extreme. Verizon cuts off all communication to everyone not paying them directly. That includes all other backbones (like Cogent, AT&T, UUNET, etc in the US and all foreign sites). All sites not directly paying Verizon from everywhere around the world stop working entirely.
Is that "internet access"?
What's the difference between "not working because of no connection" and "functionally not working because of deliberately insufficient connection"? Practically none.
I'm not sure you've entirely grocked the idea of an "Internet" and are confusing it with an "Intranet".
Verizon has advertized that I can buy X amount of internet connection, and then (deliberately) failed to create the upstream connections to deliver on that promise. Netflix, one of those up-stream providers who pays Cogent for access to the internet, is now having to pay Verizon for access to its intranet which, according to my earlier statement, is supposed to be internet.
Now we all realize that bandwidth upstream isn't infinite. If everybody and their brother decided to attach to my server at home, they cannot expect that only their paid-for internet connection would determine their connection speed (as mine would come into play), and even at a peering level, congestion is an inevitability at some point.
But the goal of Verizon, in servicing its customers, is *supposed* to be doing the best it can to provide promised internet badnwith to locations that its customers are tyring to reach. We know they will not succeed perfectly.
The issue is when Verison begins to, for the sake of profit, selectively limit peering. They are no longer attempting to fulfill their promise to give me internet access at a given bandwidth. It is this willfulness that moves us from "the way the thing works" to our gripe with the way the major ISPs are operating.
Let me put this in a different context. If TWC suddenly solved all its problems with NetFlix in my area, and if the public at large was aware of this, there would be a migration from Verizon to TWC. At that point, Verizon would suddenly improve its peeing with Netflix.
The only reason they did not, is because they are duopoly and so did not have to. That's pretty-much the bright-line test for whether there is abuse.
So all my cells come from a single cell that was present in my mother at the time of her birth having all come from a single cell present in her mother at the time of her birth, etc, etc.
Because cells reproduce by binary fission, both "child cells" are the original cell. Therefore, every cell on the planet is as old as the first cell (unless cell genesis occurred more than once).
Anyone who asserts, therefore, that cells have a finite and resolute reproduction amount or lifespan is clearly wrong. Some individual cells may introduce mechanisms that age them (I'm sure many do); but all existing cells are billions of years old.
As I see it, both parties are missing incredible opportunities.
Let's Judo-flip this conversation.
Broadcasters earn revenue from advertising. Aero is faithfully streaming content including all advertising to their customers. Clearly what is needed is a partnership for Aero to report viewer demographics back to broadcasters, who can pad onto their numbers when selling ads.
Aero is charging too little for their service. Their model is stupid. They are trying to counter cable carriers charging $50, 60, 100+/mo with a service that's $8 and $12. Aero should charge $29 and kick $15 per customer per month to the cable carrier(s) in the market in which each customer resides.
Cable provides more channels than Aero, which only gives you a way to shift the (usually 3-6) free channels. Pricing parity would make no sense.
Aero is then in the infrastructure business. The cable companies get build out absolutely free, without having to sink billions of dollars into last mile wiring of neighborhoods, and Aero gets massive revenue stream in a highly symbiotic relationship. For Aero customers, the cable company is is the content licensing and resale business - and the best part - they don't have to service & support those customers, Aero does.
Addtionally, if Aero has such a wonderful idea, there is nothing stopping Comcast from doing exactly the same thing. What is more expensive - the cost of bandwidth, or the cost of pulling copper, telephony or fiber to every house * N tens of millions of customers? Bandwidth is down for a few cents per gigabyte streamed now. How much does a nationwide fiber buildout cost?
This case is really about constipated thinking and reactionary fear in the face of changing climate.
How does one get badnwidth without copper/fiber/cable again?
Why doesn't big cable do the same? Because they don't want to compete for audinece... they want to have captive audience.
For still photography, focus isn't a terribly hard problem to solve. Autofocus works, and DSLRs let you compose, focus, and shoot manually as well. Easy peasy.
Depends on what you are shooting and what you are shooting with. Bird moving through foliage at low F value? AF is likely to grab foliage. Something really close to camera and moving randomly? That can be a problem too. Baby waving arms... make sure you get focus to the face: AF (esp phase-focus) is likely to get the nearest object rather than the correct one. Contrast focus (and phase focus on-sensore, as with Canon 70D) can add face / eye detect, but (except the 70D) at the cost of speed (so moving objects are a problem again).
The employer didn't not intentionally create nor knowingly permit. The problem with this CEO stemmed from the outside world.
The proximate cause to want to end his employment (yes, I realize that in actuality he quit) was the disruption in the workplace from the outside.
That the source of this disruption was the customer base, and that the cause for their displeasure was political seems not germain to whether the company itself would have been acting in a legal manner should it have been a firing. The obvious question I would put before the law is "can a company be forced to keep an ineffective employee merely because that ineffectiveness is in some way, outside the control of the company, tied to their politics".
Though I have to wonder if this means, in CA, a company can be forced to keep a KKK member or neo-nazi even if they are, for example, a minority outreach non-profit or houacaust museam.
Distance. - Fuel - Time in microgravity Radiation exposure enroute (in fairness, a problem for Mars) No aerobreaking to land (though perhaps mitigated by lower gravity) No idea how to get through ice, or what would happen when you did. Contamination. Pressure. Stopping radiation = no radio. Etc.
When we can have permenant habitats in the deep desert: then we can talk about feasability offworld. The moon is really a no-brainer starting point because of the(relative) ease of short-duration missions and resupply.
First they would need to lower the stock somehow... perhaps sewing FUD over 2 fires. If that doesn't work, maybe some campaign about how bad batteries are. That would make them aquireable... if it worked.
It is an absolute certainty that an infinite amount of monkeys would type an infinite amount of "a"s on their first keystroke. They would also type an infinite number of all other characters on their first keystroke.
There's a classic story. A building with infinite rooms has infinite people filling it and you want to add infinity more. All you do is have everyone move to the room with double their current room-number, freeing up an infinite number of odd numbered rooms. Mind you: some will have an infinitely long move ahead of them.
Though honestly: I think it might be better if B5 was just reshot entierely. There are plot threads that didn't get cleaned up because of unexpected changes mid season (though Talia had a grand exit that, while bringing a sudden end to some plots, was actually very well done, the other two created gaping holes in how the series unfolded). There were, bluntly, cheap-looking sets which would likely not be helped by a higher resolution (See shows like Farscape for better set use). The acting was something of a mixed bag.
The only way to get HD versions of the episodes would be to re-render every single CGI and comp shot, and Warners will never, ever pay to have that done.
That's simply not a true statement.
To his first issue (aspect ratio). There are two possible solutions. 1) Release in 4:3. There's nothing in the HDTV spec that prevents you from putting black lines on the left and right sides. 2) Change aspect ratios when CGI is present (this commonly happens in movies. Batman: Dark knight uses something like 4 aspect ratios)
To his second issue (resolution of CGI): So what. I know fan communities that could reproduce the graphics and have done similar. What they cannot redo is the recorded acting.
But in no way do I support the demonization or boycott of people just because they have a different opinion of something than I do. To me that's a for of bigotry itself, and why would I want to be bigoted?
I'm pretty sure that there are almost no two people on earth who have the same opinion on every single subject. If we go down this road of shunning those who think differently, we all wind up as islands - and not the fun kind with umbrellas in in drinks, for we will have shunned all of the umbrella makers...
I agree.
But that's not really a correct description of this case, is it? He doesn't simply hold a different opionion: He acted (through donations) to try to get laws prohibiting homosexuals from marrying.
There's a big difference between responding negatively to someone's beliefs and responding to their actions.
It is true that there are many different types of cancer. I've often been the advocate for "you can't 'cure cancer' because it's not a single thing" , and on many levels it is not.
But I've come to change the conclusion that a single, overriding cure for most-or-all cancers is not feasable. At the root, the same basic event (uncontrolled division) is occuring. Given that there are even mammals which have developed nigh-immunity to all cancers (naked mole rats); it doesn't seem unreasonable that such a universal solution might be available to medical science at some point in the future.
As to the "accumulating mutations" problem. There's an unbroken line of cellular replication between the egg that formed you and the first DNA-based life to form in the oceans 4 billion years ago. Yes: there has been mutation in some of the clones of that cell that have terminated individual creatures over that time, making my scenerio a bit hyperbolic; but I do think that this "accumulation of mutation" within centuries is over-rated and my be (primarily) solvable as well.
If we removed non-cancer from a naked mole rat: how long before it got cancer?
I will invoce your company for "transaction services" and then donate the bulk of the funds to the open-source projects of your choice. Feel free to contact me to do so:)
The basic article is rather rife with false assumptions and simply wrong information.
Much of the article seems about power (the amplifier)... and I've got gear at my house spanning the past 30 years. Though he discusses power; let's start with the actual sound quality... a well built amp will work with no discernable loss of soundquality. Period. Decades of testing by basically everyone (not to mention a simple oscilliscope) show that a properly built amp, driven within its limits, has no audiable diviation from "perfect".
It was true 30 years ago. It's true now. If there's "a sound" to your amp either 1) It's deliberate. 2) The amp is junk 3) There's a problem.
So what about power? Well, McIntosh (my 35-year old is 120Wx2) makes amps up to 2,000W right now; and there are others that go higher. Peavy has a class-H amp at best-buy that's 1200W @ 2ohm for a couple of hundred dollars.
But any discussion of power is just stupid without a discussion of load. As we've moved to self-powered subs and smaller mains: the needed power to drive speakers has gone down. Sure you can get a set of B&W800s or such... and for you the high-end store still carries huge amps.
There's so much that can be said but the short of it is, unless you actually screwed up, it is the speakers, not the amp, that determines the sound.
But what about the other way? Hearing someone when I've got a lot of background noise. My problem with "in-the-ear" has been that, because the distance is so short and the driver so small, the rate of volume increase / decrease is sharp. In short, I quickly go from "can't hear you" to "too loud, but still can't understand".
"condemn an entire industry because of one accident"
Well blowouts occur more-than-yearly with oil dumps in the tons. Add to that collapses, sinkings, pipe ruptures, and things like tanker ruptures and the numbers get very signifigant.
This is just an unusually large instance in an unusually noticed spot.
Copyright was not created back in the days of yore, nor enshrined in the constitution to protect / help the economy.
The express purpose for granting an artist exclusive copy right for a limited period was to encourage the production of more art. (the US constitution is pretty explicit, but so is centuries of common-law before that).
How / why am I having my tax dollar spent on this non-issue. I don't think we have a shortage of art looming, and if we do: I don't see that copyright laws in India are the problem.
Yes, we know of windows and skylights (windows in roofs). Neither routs light througout a building.
But light-pipes do. In smaller buildings (houses) they are hemispherical light gatherers with basicaly reflective conduit. In larger strructures, they are fiber-optic.
Slashdot Mirror
We have to pay for this monster to live for the rest of his life. We *all* pay taxes for that. It's expensive. Tell me how that doesn't affect us. A death-row inmate costs, what, $50-75-100K/yr to house and feed? We get no value from this. This is akin to toxic waste disposal. How many doctors, teachers, scientists can we hire for the amount of money we pay to house these people? How much further would we be as a society if we spent the money on getting ahead, not waste disposal
There are approximately 3,000 people on death row. I would imagine a liberal estimate, if we never killed any, would put mayby 10,000 people that might otherwise, eventually, be executed in prison for life.
As of 2011, there were 2,300,000 people in pirson.
So to answer your question as a percentage: We could save less than 00.5% of our prison budget... assuming executations themselves add $0 cost to the process, and assuming that those executions were carried out before even the trial happened. If you have trials, and waits, and there's a cost to the execution: we save less still.
And remember: these are based on grossly liberal estimates. If I just use current numbers, the savings is closer to 00.1% before lowerign it further with execution costs.
How about you drop the pretense that the issue is cost?
Check the IETF standards discussions for IPv6 and HTTP back in the 1990s. You might see that I've been groking (and designing) this internet thing for a while.
Openeing your response by poinding the table is not a good sign. (I started in the 1980s, so I win)
Where you're being tricked is that you don't realize Netflix is basically just asking for free web hosting. Free hosting for the highest bandwidth site in the world. Netflix is NOT a peer of Verizon, so their attempt to call their upstream connection "peering" is misleading.
You pay Verizon to connect YOU to the internet. Netflix wants to pay nobody to connect them to the internet. They wanted Verizon to provide them with free bandwidth by providing multi-gigabit connections for free. Sorry Netflix, if you want gigabits of upstream bandwidth you have to pay for it, just like the rest of us.
Actually: I pay Verizon for a connection to NetFlix. It's not something Verizon is being asked to provide for free.
Cogent (which has one of the highest-ranked connectivity degrees on the Internet) is who Verizon is failing to peer sufficiently with. They are not providing me the connectivity to the internet which I am paying them to provide. They likely would be falling over themselves to do so (perhaps going so far as to offer NetFlix that free access you assert) were they losing customers to other services that did offer such connectivity... but because of the duopoly, there's no competition for them to lose to.
For comparison: See Google Fiber's performance with NetFlix.
Let's take this to an extreme. Verizon cuts off all communication to everyone not paying them directly. That includes all other backbones (like Cogent, AT&T, UUNET, etc in the US and all foreign sites). All sites not directly paying Verizon from everywhere around the world stop working entirely.
Is that "internet access"?
What's the difference between "not working because of no connection" and "functionally not working because of deliberately insufficient connection"? Practically none.
I'm not sure you've entirely grocked the idea of an "Internet" and are confusing it with an "Intranet".
Verizon has advertized that I can buy X amount of internet connection, and then (deliberately) failed to create the upstream connections to deliver on that promise. Netflix, one of those up-stream providers who pays Cogent for access to the internet, is now having to pay Verizon for access to its intranet which, according to my earlier statement, is supposed to be internet.
Now we all realize that bandwidth upstream isn't infinite. If everybody and their brother decided to attach to my server at home, they cannot expect that only their paid-for internet connection would determine their connection speed (as mine would come into play), and even at a peering level, congestion is an inevitability at some point.
But the goal of Verizon, in servicing its customers, is *supposed* to be doing the best it can to provide promised internet badnwith to locations that its customers are tyring to reach. We know they will not succeed perfectly.
The issue is when Verison begins to, for the sake of profit, selectively limit peering. They are no longer attempting to fulfill their promise to give me internet access at a given bandwidth. It is this willfulness that moves us from "the way the thing works" to our gripe with the way the major ISPs are operating.
Let me put this in a different context. If TWC suddenly solved all its problems with NetFlix in my area, and if the public at large was aware of this, there would be a migration from Verizon to TWC. At that point, Verizon would suddenly improve its peeing with Netflix.
The only reason they did not, is because they are duopoly and so did not have to. That's pretty-much the bright-line test for whether there is abuse.
ISPs should be common carrier.
So all my cells come from a single cell that was present in my mother at the time of her birth having all come from a single cell present in her mother at the time of her birth, etc, etc.
Because cells reproduce by binary fission, both "child cells" are the original cell. Therefore, every cell on the planet is as old as the first cell (unless cell genesis occurred more than once).
Anyone who asserts, therefore, that cells have a finite and resolute reproduction amount or lifespan is clearly wrong. Some individual cells may introduce mechanisms that age them (I'm sure many do); but all existing cells are billions of years old.
As I see it, both parties are missing incredible opportunities.
Let's Judo-flip this conversation.
Broadcasters earn revenue from advertising. Aero is faithfully streaming content including all advertising to their customers. Clearly what is needed is a partnership for Aero to report viewer demographics back to broadcasters, who can pad onto their numbers when selling ads.
Aero is charging too little for their service. Their model is stupid. They are trying to counter cable carriers charging $50, 60, 100+/mo with a service that's $8 and $12. Aero should charge $29 and kick $15 per customer per month to the cable carrier(s) in the market in which each customer resides.
Cable provides more channels than Aero, which only gives you a way to shift the (usually 3-6) free channels. Pricing parity would make no sense.
Aero is then in the infrastructure business. The cable companies get build out absolutely free, without having to sink billions of dollars into last mile wiring of neighborhoods, and Aero gets massive revenue stream in a highly symbiotic relationship. For Aero customers, the cable company is is the content licensing and resale business - and the best part - they don't have to service & support those customers, Aero does.
Addtionally, if Aero has such a wonderful idea, there is nothing stopping Comcast from doing exactly the same thing. What is more expensive - the cost of bandwidth, or the cost of pulling copper, telephony or fiber to every house * N tens of millions of customers? Bandwidth is down for a few cents per gigabyte streamed now. How much does a nationwide fiber buildout cost?
This case is really about constipated thinking and reactionary fear in the face of changing climate.
How does one get badnwidth without copper/fiber/cable again?
Why doesn't big cable do the same? Because they don't want to compete for audinece... they want to have captive audience.
For still photography, focus isn't a terribly hard problem to solve. Autofocus works, and DSLRs let you compose, focus, and shoot manually as well. Easy peasy.
Depends on what you are shooting and what you are shooting with. Bird moving through foliage at low F value? AF is likely to grab foliage. Something really close to camera and moving randomly? That can be a problem too. Baby waving arms... make sure you get focus to the face: AF (esp phase-focus) is likely to get the nearest object rather than the correct one. Contrast focus (and phase focus on-sensore, as with Canon 70D) can add face / eye detect, but (except the 70D) at the cost of speed (so moving objects are a problem again).
Begs an odd question.
The employer didn't not intentionally create nor knowingly permit. The problem with this CEO stemmed from the outside world.
The proximate cause to want to end his employment (yes, I realize that in actuality he quit) was the disruption in the workplace from the outside.
That the source of this disruption was the customer base, and that the cause for their displeasure was political seems not germain to whether the company itself would have been acting in a legal manner should it have been a firing. The obvious question I would put before the law is "can a company be forced to keep an ineffective employee merely because that ineffectiveness is in some way, outside the control of the company, tied to their politics".
Though I have to wonder if this means, in CA, a company can be forced to keep a KKK member or neo-nazi even if they are, for example, a minority outreach non-profit or houacaust museam.
Distance.
- Fuel
- Time in microgravity
Radiation exposure enroute (in fairness, a problem for Mars)
No aerobreaking to land (though perhaps mitigated by lower gravity)
No idea how to get through ice, or what would happen when you did.
Contamination.
Pressure.
Stopping radiation = no radio.
Etc.
When we can have permenant habitats in the deep desert: then we can talk about feasability offworld. The moon is really a no-brainer starting point because of the(relative) ease of short-duration missions and resupply.
First they would need to lower the stock somehow... perhaps sewing FUD over 2 fires. If that doesn't work, maybe some campaign about how bad batteries are. That would make them aquireable... if it worked.
It is an absolute certainty that an infinite amount of monkeys would type an infinite amount of "a"s on their first keystroke. They would also type an infinite number of all other characters on their first keystroke.
There's a classic story. A building with infinite rooms has infinite people filling it and you want to add infinity more. All you do is have everyone move to the room with double their current room-number, freeing up an infinite number of odd numbered rooms. Mind you: some will have an infinitely long move ahead of them.
Unfortunately: They created infinite heat from their work and basically destroyed the universe.
Though honestly: I think it might be better if B5 was just reshot entierely. There are plot threads that didn't get cleaned up because of unexpected changes mid season (though Talia had a grand exit that, while bringing a sudden end to some plots, was actually very well done, the other two created gaping holes in how the series unfolded). There were, bluntly, cheap-looking sets which would likely not be helped by a higher resolution (See shows like Farscape for better set use). The acting was something of a mixed bag.
The only way to get HD versions of the episodes would be to re-render every single CGI and comp shot, and Warners will never, ever pay to have that done.
That's simply not a true statement.
To his first issue (aspect ratio). There are two possible solutions.
1) Release in 4:3. There's nothing in the HDTV spec that prevents you from putting black lines on the left and right sides.
2) Change aspect ratios when CGI is present (this commonly happens in movies. Batman: Dark knight uses something like 4 aspect ratios)
To his second issue (resolution of CGI): So what. I know fan communities that could reproduce the graphics and have done similar. What they cannot redo is the recorded acting.
But in no way do I support the demonization or boycott of people just because they have a different opinion of something than I do. To me that's a for of bigotry itself, and why would I want to be bigoted?
I'm pretty sure that there are almost no two people on earth who have the same opinion on every single subject. If we go down this road of shunning those who think differently, we all wind up as islands - and not the fun kind with umbrellas in in drinks, for we will have shunned all of the umbrella makers...
I agree.
But that's not really a correct description of this case, is it? He doesn't simply hold a different opionion: He acted (through donations) to try to get laws prohibiting homosexuals from marrying.
There's a big difference between responding negatively to someone's beliefs and responding to their actions.
Aplolgies if this was already mentioned: but why not just put the video in Premiere and black out the 5-seconds or whatever with apple products?
It is true that there are many different types of cancer. I've often been the advocate for "you can't 'cure cancer' because it's not a single thing" , and on many levels it is not.
But I've come to change the conclusion that a single, overriding cure for most-or-all cancers is not feasable. At the root, the same basic event (uncontrolled division) is occuring. Given that there are even mammals which have developed nigh-immunity to all cancers (naked mole rats); it doesn't seem unreasonable that such a universal solution might be available to medical science at some point in the future.
As to the "accumulating mutations" problem. There's an unbroken line of cellular replication between the egg that formed you and the first DNA-based life to form in the oceans 4 billion years ago. Yes: there has been mutation in some of the clones of that cell that have terminated individual creatures over that time, making my scenerio a bit hyperbolic; but I do think that this "accumulation of mutation" within centuries is over-rated and my be (primarily) solvable as well.
If we removed non-cancer from a naked mole rat: how long before it got cancer?
I will invoce your company for "transaction services" and then donate the bulk of the funds to the open-source projects of your choice. Feel free to contact me to do so :)
FTA: "In the last 3000 years, the maximum age of trees alive today, only one such event appears to have taken place."
The actual oldest trees are about 5,000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees)
Though that doesn't devalidate his main point (that this has only happened once in 3,000 years). I just wish he'd fact-check a bit more.
The basic article is rather rife with false assumptions and simply wrong information.
Much of the article seems about power (the amplifier)... and I've got gear at my house spanning the past 30 years.
Though he discusses power; let's start with the actual sound quality... a well built amp will work with no discernable loss of soundquality. Period. Decades of testing by basically everyone (not to mention a simple oscilliscope) show that a properly built amp, driven within its limits, has no audiable diviation from "perfect".
It was true 30 years ago. It's true now. If there's "a sound" to your amp either
1) It's deliberate.
2) The amp is junk
3) There's a problem.
So what about power? Well, McIntosh (my 35-year old is 120Wx2) makes amps up to 2,000W right now; and there are others that go higher. Peavy has a class-H amp at best-buy that's 1200W @ 2ohm for a couple of hundred dollars.
But any discussion of power is just stupid without a discussion of load. As we've moved to self-powered subs and smaller mains: the needed power to drive speakers has gone down. Sure you can get a set of B&W800s or such... and for you the high-end store still carries huge amps.
There's so much that can be said but the short of it is, unless you actually screwed up, it is the speakers, not the amp, that determines the sound.
But what about the other way? Hearing someone when I've got a lot of background noise. My problem with "in-the-ear" has been that, because the distance is so short and the driver so small, the rate of volume increase / decrease is sharp. In short, I quickly go from "can't hear you" to "too loud, but still can't understand".
Then I could deal with a radioactive oil slick. At least I could still tan at night.
"condemn an entire industry because of one accident"
Well blowouts occur more-than-yearly with oil dumps in the tons. Add to that collapses, sinkings, pipe ruptures, and things like tanker ruptures and the numbers get very signifigant.
This is just an unusually large instance in an unusually noticed spot.
But how well will it work in the minivan when the kids want to watch it, or on the plane when work is flying me somewhere?
Copyright was not created back in the days of yore, nor enshrined in the constitution to protect / help the economy.
The express purpose for granting an artist exclusive copy right for a limited period was to encourage the production of more art. (the US constitution is pretty explicit, but so is centuries of common-law before that).
How / why am I having my tax dollar spent on this non-issue. I don't think we have a shortage of art looming, and if we do: I don't see that copyright laws in India are the problem.
Yes, we know of windows and skylights (windows in roofs). Neither routs light througout a building.
But light-pipes do. In smaller buildings (houses) they are hemispherical light gatherers with basicaly reflective conduit. In larger strructures, they are fiber-optic.
Cool, but not new.