A) stop making residential streets thoroughfares. B) start making real main streets that get you from a to b faster than residential streets C) Stop allowing people to build residences on highways.
If the houses and residential areas predate the highways and increased traffic, you'll have to tear down a LOT of houses to create the arterial roads you believe are needed.
On an open highway, go for it, I think we should be allowed to go 100mph.
I'm not a big fan of that unless you mean completely open. An open highway is rarely that open. I'd rather not drive above 70-75 on 4-lane Interstate because it's a lot of wear and tear and lower fuel efficiency. If people are constantly aggressively passing at 100mph, there's a safety hazard in the relative speed difference. Especially when a 70-75 driver is passing a big truck going 60-65 with multiple 100mph drivers approaching from behind.
Consciousness doesn't begin at conception. On the other hand, if you're in a coma for six years starting at 15 you're probably not mature enough to drink at 21 either, so basing age on consciousness-years is probably our best option. If you want to have a pedantic and convoluted option.
Or maybe aging isn't considered to start until delivery because you're still being built - much like a car at the factory isn't a "new car" until it's being delivered to a dealer. So if you're exactly 21 years old, you've aged 21 years. Not that you've been alive for 21 years.
You're referring to the equation itself. Not the relationship. That's a different usage of the word exponential. The inverse square law is another example of a (quadratic) physics equation describing an exponential relationship.
Am I to understand that police must commit crimes in their regular course of duty?
Well..technically, yes. In order to stop a speeder in traffic, you must exceed the speed limit yourself. Of course that's written into the law, so it's not technically illegal. And a completely irrelevant point.
No. Unless you're talking about x^1, exponentially is not being abused. What else are you going to call it? Linear? What's your threshold for exponential? x^3?
Way up on a hill will greatly increase your range (as will having a mast otherwise). In fact, instead of putting your street address or zip, put in your direct latitude and longitude (zoom in on Google Maps and pull it from the URL as a cheap trick). Or drag the marker. That web site takes elevation into account. I always used antennaweb.org but I like this a lot too. No parameters on either site to adjust for a taller antenna or a stronger gain antenna.
Problem with these sites is that if you're "out of range" it tells you nothing. I put in 44.8960003,-70.5338503 (which is 10 miles SE of Rangeley) and it lights up with several channels. Even Rangeley Planatation lights up.
I dragged the marker to the tops of hills (mountains?) all around Rangeley and get channel listings showing. Just not in the valleys (where the larger hills cut off the signal).
It creates a lot of destruction, and it's horrible that it's been responsible for crashes, but they aren't meant to be a model for the entire financial industry. They provide a little bit of value, in the form of increased liquidity in the market.
Do you think the power utility ought to audit everyone to determine whether or not their business (well, not just business, but their use of electricity) is speculative
No. They received a huge number of requests to increase capacity. It's completely fair to look at who is requesting that and how they can mitigate their own financial risk.
OTOH if you start backpedalling and claim that you don't want the power utility to adjudicate whether or not you are a speculative user
I'm not moving to Washington or asking for new power to be provisioned. I'm not sure how that's relevant.
I'm told I can get OTA, even with just an internal antenna, but I've never actually tried it and I don't believe them anyhow.
I do use OTA. But I have a poor connection and poor aim - it's inside my attic pointed at a metal vent and with trees and a building in the way. And for that matter, I think the F-connector was crimped onto the cable wrong at the attic end. The antenna itself is half a broken outdoor antenna that I got for free from a friend. At 40 miles out, I get all the major networks in HD (ABC, FOX, CBS, NBC, CW, PBS). It's better quality that satellite or cable, since they recompress and rebroadcast from antenna source anyway.
And if you prefer to do your viewing on a computer screen while multitasking, get an HDHomerun network tuner.
Why can't they just state that up front, bill them for the upgrades, and work out some sort of contract for payment?
I can guarantee that will be more expensive for BTC miners - they aren't a long term sustainable business, at least at that level. It really sounds like the utility was doing them a favor in working it into the kWh cost.
Doesn't really matter. When you hit your supply limits, you can only increase efficiency.
Fission is going to become the new oil eventually. It's a limited resource. Hydrogen less so, but no guarantee that we'll be able to do that efficiently on a containable scale.
DOCSIS 3.0 on 4 channels is pretty standard. That's why 150Mbps per node. Even if it is serviced by fiber, it's limited to 150Mbps without more channels dedicated.
Cable is trying to get around bandwidth limitations by moving to switched digital video. That way, you've only got one channel per tuner sent across the wire. And if two neighbors are watching the same channel, that only requires one stream. That leaves a LOT of open channels to add into a DOCSIS 3.0 configuration.
BS. The Earth isn't a self-replenishing system, at least not until someone disproves entropy. The only thing relevant is how well we use up the resources in the couple of hundred million years until the Sun grows large enough to boil away the oceans.
And we're moving at a scale where we absolutely have to be self-sustaining within the next few hundred years. A couple hundred million years is so far off from where the problems start that it's not even relevant.
Because Windows 7 will run Windows Vista graphics drivers. I don't think 10 will run Vista drivers. I don't know what specific chipset you had on that exact model, but maybe the driver isn't digitally signed. Windows 8+ won't install those automatically but you can boot with signature enforcement turned off to install manually.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait...so if you take your foot off the brake and don't hit the gas, your idling engine will take you to 26mph and beyond?
I'm not buying it.
A) stop making residential streets thoroughfares.
B) start making real main streets that get you from a to b faster than residential streets
C) Stop allowing people to build residences on highways.
If the houses and residential areas predate the highways and increased traffic, you'll have to tear down a LOT of houses to create the arterial roads you believe are needed.
On an open highway, go for it, I think we should be allowed to go 100mph.
I'm not a big fan of that unless you mean completely open. An open highway is rarely that open. I'd rather not drive above 70-75 on 4-lane Interstate because it's a lot of wear and tear and lower fuel efficiency. If people are constantly aggressively passing at 100mph, there's a safety hazard in the relative speed difference. Especially when a 70-75 driver is passing a big truck going 60-65 with multiple 100mph drivers approaching from behind.
Consciousness doesn't begin at conception. On the other hand, if you're in a coma for six years starting at 15 you're probably not mature enough to drink at 21 either, so basing age on consciousness-years is probably our best option. If you want to have a pedantic and convoluted option.
Or maybe aging isn't considered to start until delivery because you're still being built - much like a car at the factory isn't a "new car" until it's being delivered to a dealer. So if you're exactly 21 years old, you've aged 21 years. Not that you've been alive for 21 years.
Unless you coast down to speed without brakes plenty early and gradually speed back up without the car downshifting...which doesn't happen that often.
Slowing down to 65 and speeding up to 70 again uses more gas than staying at 70. Even though 70 uses more gas than 65 at a constant speed.
You're referring to the equation itself. Not the relationship. That's a different usage of the word exponential. The inverse square law is another example of a (quadratic) physics equation describing an exponential relationship.
Perhaps you should look at the problem and find a better way for safety
In your example, prosecuting jaywalkers would increase safety without impeding traffic.
Am I to understand that police must commit crimes in their regular course of duty?
Well..technically, yes. In order to stop a speeder in traffic, you must exceed the speed limit yourself. Of course that's written into the law, so it's not technically illegal. And a completely irrelevant point.
Exponential function is not the same as an exponential relationship. You're using the term "exponential function" as equivalent to exponential.
the term "exponentially" is being abused.
No. Unless you're talking about x^1, exponentially is not being abused. What else are you going to call it? Linear? What's your threshold for exponential? x^3?
That's what I said....though a lot more concisely.
Way up on a hill will greatly increase your range (as will having a mast otherwise). In fact, instead of putting your street address or zip, put in your direct latitude and longitude (zoom in on Google Maps and pull it from the URL as a cheap trick). Or drag the marker. That web site takes elevation into account. I always used antennaweb.org but I like this a lot too. No parameters on either site to adjust for a taller antenna or a stronger gain antenna.
Problem with these sites is that if you're "out of range" it tells you nothing. I put in 44.8960003,-70.5338503 (which is 10 miles SE of Rangeley) and it lights up with several channels. Even Rangeley Planatation lights up.
I dragged the marker to the tops of hills (mountains?) all around Rangeley and get channel listings showing. Just not in the valleys (where the larger hills cut off the signal).
It creates a lot of destruction, and it's horrible that it's been responsible for crashes, but they aren't meant to be a model for the entire financial industry. They provide a little bit of value, in the form of increased liquidity in the market.
Do you think the power utility ought to audit everyone to determine whether or not their business (well, not just business, but their use of electricity) is speculative
No. They received a huge number of requests to increase capacity. It's completely fair to look at who is requesting that and how they can mitigate their own financial risk.
OTOH if you start backpedalling and claim that you don't want the power utility to adjudicate whether or not you are a speculative user
I'm not moving to Washington or asking for new power to be provisioned. I'm not sure how that's relevant.
Even more reason for the power company to not want to build out infrastructure for nothing.
I'm told I can get OTA, even with just an internal antenna, but I've never actually tried it and I don't believe them anyhow.
I do use OTA. But I have a poor connection and poor aim - it's inside my attic pointed at a metal vent and with trees and a building in the way. And for that matter, I think the F-connector was crimped onto the cable wrong at the attic end. The antenna itself is half a broken outdoor antenna that I got for free from a friend. At 40 miles out, I get all the major networks in HD (ABC, FOX, CBS, NBC, CW, PBS). It's better quality that satellite or cable, since they recompress and rebroadcast from antenna source anyway.
And if you prefer to do your viewing on a computer screen while multitasking, get an HDHomerun network tuner.
Why can't they just state that up front, bill them for the upgrades, and work out some sort of contract for payment?
I can guarantee that will be more expensive for BTC miners - they aren't a long term sustainable business, at least at that level. It really sounds like the utility was doing them a favor in working it into the kWh cost.
Nobody ever said they were small (or portable) electric kidneys.
Doesn't really matter. When you hit your supply limits, you can only increase efficiency.
Fission is going to become the new oil eventually. It's a limited resource. Hydrogen less so, but no guarantee that we'll be able to do that efficiently on a containable scale.
DOCSIS 3.0 on 4 channels is pretty standard. That's why 150Mbps per node. Even if it is serviced by fiber, it's limited to 150Mbps without more channels dedicated.
Cable is trying to get around bandwidth limitations by moving to switched digital video. That way, you've only got one channel per tuner sent across the wire. And if two neighbors are watching the same channel, that only requires one stream. That leaves a LOT of open channels to add into a DOCSIS 3.0 configuration.
Bitcoin miners are only making money speculatively. No reason the power company shouldn't treat servicing them the same way.
Of course, we'll need a better energy source than coal or oil if we eventually want to become completely green.
Coal and oil are both incredibly energy dense. To be self-sustaining, you'll need to use less energy more than you need to find a better power source.
BS. The Earth isn't a self-replenishing system, at least not until someone disproves entropy.
The only thing relevant is how well we use up the resources in the couple of hundred million years until the Sun grows large enough to boil away the oceans.
And we're moving at a scale where we absolutely have to be self-sustaining within the next few hundred years. A couple hundred million years is so far off from where the problems start that it's not even relevant.
Because Windows 7 will run Windows Vista graphics drivers. I don't think 10 will run Vista drivers. I don't know what specific chipset you had on that exact model, but maybe the driver isn't digitally signed. Windows 8+ won't install those automatically but you can boot with signature enforcement turned off to install manually.