. I hear Amazon basically data mines business partners who sell on their site to undercut prices on everything except for certain narrowly agreed products.
To be fair, most sellers on Amazon Markets do the same, and price their stuff just under or at Amazon's price, and Amazon seems OK with that. Wasn't there a bug in the past where the software that people use to undercut Amazon had a big and was pricing stuff at 1 cent, and Amazon stepped in to help out with that?
They're definitely playing the long game. But it's not a good move for their partners.
So far it's worked very well for their customers, and has for many years. It's starting to seem pretty far-fetch that this is some elaborate scheme to do anything except lower prices to keep customers buying.
How do you know that MS is not abetting the systemd bandwagon? What a perfect leadup to the Extend and Extinguish steps.
That would be a work of genius, and frankly I don't think MS is that smart any more. Still, if it turns out Pottering has been on the MS payroll all along, I might actually die laughing.
one acre is about 4000 m^2, a foot is about 0.3 m, so about 1200 m^3 You have 264 gallons per cubic meter, lets say 250 since the acre-foot estimate is about as accurate as Russian maps along the Ukrainian border anyway. That gives us about 1200/4 * 1000 = 300000 gallons.
An acre is a rectangle bounded by a furlong and a chain (things you learn from rock music videos), or 22 * 220 square yards, so an acre-foot is 43560 cubit feet ~= 325850 gallons.
Most household water use is irrigation. Water use inside the house is a trivial part of overall national water use - low flow whatsit may save you money, but won't make a difference in the big picture.
The typical family uses an acre-inch of water a month, or an acre-foot per year, whatever that is in gallons.
But residential use is trivial over all - most water use is in power generation, and most of the rest is agricultural. California is one of the few states that actually uses saltwater for power generation, but still: mostly farms.
Most other city business does not need to be done in a city centre any more. chucking more free ways at is does not solve the problem.
You might be a liberal if your solution to an engineering problem is "everyone else just needs to change how they behave and the problem goes away!"
reality outside those few hours a day they have a 5%(or whatever) usage.
In California (which started this discussion), "peak usage" is the majority of the day. Rush hour is from 6am to 9pm. That's what happens when you won't build enough roads.
And all to try to resolve a few hours a day when peak traffic occurs.
And all to significantly improve everyone's quality of life, by giving them back often significant chunks of time every day they used to spend commuting. It's a worthy goal!
Sure, I had it great growing up in a trailer in the Appellations, single mother, etc. Leave me out of your privilege claims and stop fucking stereotyping me based on the color of my skin, you damn racist bigot.
I certainly understand that the mostly upper-middle-class-good-college Social Justice Warriors who have never done anything use with their life feel like they have unearned privilege. Yup, you do. That has little to do with race. Stop assuming that other people who look like you have a similar background. Stop assuming that there aren't people who look nothing like you but have the same background. That's exactly the sort of offensive stereotyping we're trying to stamp out!
Agile Project management methodology has a lot of good features. Cloud based processing can help the organization. You can get a lot of useful information from Big Data (Previously Business Intelligence, Previously Decision Support System)
Heck, none of these are very new, other than perhaps the scale of Bug Data. Agile was new around 2000. "Cloud" was all the hype around 2007. These are proven ideas now, though as you say you have to understand them, you can't just move your systems and hope fore the best.
Hosting your email on gmail isn't going to the cloud. Or even just remotely hosting you stuff on cloud systems, isn't embracing the cloud it is just offshoring your data.
A lot of people don't get this yet, though moving all your back-end systems to be cloud-hosted is as good as you can often get with legacy systems. Though the DB servers are often the sticking point (even if you can get cloud-hosted servers that work with your software, which is wonderful when you can, you still need to get the data there, and otherwise you have to be very careful what cloud servers you try to run your own DB servers on - sometimes there's no way).
Obviously, that's a lot of work, to think through security, availability, supportability, and so on, because the solutions to each are different in the cloud. They may be easier once you're done, but it can be quite difficult indeed for admins to abandon their tried-and-true bag of tricks for an environment where they need a new bag!
People don't encounter evolution in their daily lives either, excepting the Flu, but I find it rather important to teach (more stuff in that 100-150 window).
Relativity and QM are easy enough to teach qualitatively (and the math for SR for many examples is simple algebra). There's a host of people who don't believe either, who think modern physics is a hoax, because it contradicts the physics they were taught in school. We should really be teaching "an electron is not like a particle, nor like a wave, but behaves in it's own inimical way" in high school, along with the basics of relativity, so that people get the sense that physics is real, that all this crazy stuff came from explaining experiments, that's it's not storytelling looking for proof!
Now now, Rei, don't exaggerate. US science education sucks, but most people are taught Civil-War Era physics. None of that relativity or quantum stuff that's over 100 years old now, of course, that's too scary, but we do an OK job of teaching 150-year-old science!
It's always worth spending money on infrastructure - it's the legitimate business of the government. It's the sign of civilization. It's the primary indicator of quality of life.
If expanding freeways doesn't reduce traffic jams you haven't expanded them enough If expanding 3 lanes to 4 doesn't help, you may need 7 lanes (7 lanes each way at chokepoints may still not solve it - sometimes you need overlapping offramps, express highways, and similar fixes).
I hate driving in urban areas precisely because the traffic makes it feel like the opposite of freedom
Exactly - lack of needed infrastructure has reduced freedom in those areas. Build more infrastructure; solve the problem.
but I'm not getting the sense that you respect alternative viewpoints on this matter
NIMBY can't be allowed to win, or we become a 3rd-World shithole with no infrastructure. Building infrastructure needs to trump NIMBY - in fact, it's the one legitimate use of Eminent domain.
True enough, but Jag wasn't that terrible when Tata got them. If Tata is serious about improving quality, they don't have far to go. If instead it seeks the quality of the Nano, then starts making forward progress, well, 15 years is optimistic.
Air quality declines, because you increase the number of cars capable of being on the road at the same time. Same with lowering gasoline prices. Make car riding easy, gas-burning increases.
Not so much. Most air-quality problems are caused by cars idling in traffic - the amount of driving people do isn't very elastic, while the amount of fuel burned to get to a given destination can rise dramatically if you spend 80% of the journey not moving.
As for a "better" lfe - first, dump the car. It makes you fat, makes your country go to war repeatedly to protect the oil,
Fuck you hippie. Shave that neckbeard, get a job, buy a car, and then you'll see. Then die in a fire, you fucking hippie.
Before Tata took over Jag, it had fallen far behind competing brands in terms of cool tech like this for luxury cars. Tata has made great leaps in closing that gap. It's great to see some new stuff as well.
Personally, I'm still a bit skeptical of "Tata quality", given some of their other products, but everyone was equally derisive of the quality of Japanese cars when I was a kid, and Korean cars when I was first driving. Who knows - Tata could pass the Japanese brands for quality in a few years.
The goal isn't "reduce traffic", as the freedom to travel by cad is a great thing! The goal is to make life better. Removing traffic jams, getting traffic off surface streets and on to freeways, reducing bumper-to-bumper to improve air quality - all of these can be achieved by adding enough lanes to your freeways. Enough many be quite high number, butt hat's fine: building robust infrastructure to make life better is what my taxes are for.
In most states, it's just silly to use surface streets when there's a freeway - even in rush hour, the freeway will be faster. But California is broken, and they just don't want to build big enough freeways (though LA at least tried, once). Making traffic flow better anywhere is rejected with "but it will bring more traffic" (sure, in the same way building a hospital will bring more deaths). NIMBY for more lanes on the freeway. NIMBY for wider surface streets. NIMBY for everything. The basic understanding that, yes, you can build enough lanes on a freeway was lacking. As a result, it sometimes felt like the entire state was a bumper-to-bumper gridlock, every neighborhood street, everything. Meh, they have the roadways they wanted, let em live with it.
Socialism is always about lying a lot. It's a hook to gain centralized power that people just keep biting at.
Are you going to try to tell us that the TSA was created by leftists?
It's a sign of the cross-over in American politics of the control freaks from the right to the left. (Did you know John Kerry wrote much of the Patriot Act?) When I was young, the moral busybodies and authoritarians were indeed on the right, balanced by the desire on the right for a poorly-funded government that would limit the effect of that. But that seems to have been a brief anomaly, and the moral busybodies and preachy humorless prudes are firmly on the left these days, save for a few elderly Bible-bashers who haven't died off yet.
Hitler thought he was a socialist. His contemporaries thought he was a socialist. The National Socialist Workers Party saw themselves as socialist. He started in power with a straight-up socialist agenda (including the eugenics, lest we forget where he got that from). Denying history won't change it, it just means you can't learn from it. What else do you think Orwell was writing about, passionate socialist that he was? He had seen first hand where socialism can lead if the people aren't careful with it.
I want a living wage, and I don't want to panic about health care and retirement. Even risk-taking super trapeze artists can use a safety net.
You want more government power to give you a living wage. You want more government power to give you health care. You want more government power to give you a safe retirement. You want more government power to protect you from this that and the other thing. Do you ever stop to think what the government will do with all that power once it has it? We only have to look back 75 years to learn the answer - the government is your friend while it accumulates power, but eventually it accumulates enough power that it no longer needs to be your friend.
Political activists love climate change as a way to take control of industry, and have been trumpeting the end of the world for some time now. I doubt there's ever been science to back that up. As the upper atmosphere warms, you necessarily have less atmospheric convection, a.k.a. weather. The only real science I've seen predicting anything drastic has been speculative - that ocean currents have a dramatic effect on local climate, and should climate change cause a shift in those, you could see rapid local warming or cooling - but no specific predictions, just noting it's a chaotic system and we can't predict how it might play out.
Slashdot Mirror
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then you realize you're just a clown
-- Bozo
. I hear Amazon basically data mines business partners who sell on their site to undercut prices on everything except for certain narrowly agreed products.
To be fair, most sellers on Amazon Markets do the same, and price their stuff just under or at Amazon's price, and Amazon seems OK with that. Wasn't there a bug in the past where the software that people use to undercut Amazon had a big and was pricing stuff at 1 cent, and Amazon stepped in to help out with that?
They're definitely playing the long game. But it's not a good move for their partners.
So far it's worked very well for their customers, and has for many years. It's starting to seem pretty far-fetch that this is some elaborate scheme to do anything except lower prices to keep customers buying.
How do you know that MS is not abetting the systemd bandwagon? What a perfect leadup to the Extend and Extinguish steps.
That would be a work of genius, and frankly I don't think MS is that smart any more. Still, if it turns out Pottering has been on the MS payroll all along, I might actually die laughing.
The stereotypes are wrong and harmful, on both sides of the fence. Racism ends when we stop judging people by race - full stop.
one acre is about 4000 m^2, a foot is about 0.3 m, so about 1200 m^3
You have 264 gallons per cubic meter, lets say 250 since the acre-foot estimate is about as accurate as Russian maps along the Ukrainian border anyway.
That gives us about 1200/4 * 1000 = 300000 gallons.
An acre is a rectangle bounded by a furlong and a chain (things you learn from rock music videos), or 22 * 220 square yards, so an acre-foot is 43560 cubit feet ~= 325850 gallons.
Most household water use is irrigation. Water use inside the house is a trivial part of overall national water use - low flow whatsit may save you money, but won't make a difference in the big picture.
The typical family uses an acre-inch of water a month, or an acre-foot per year, whatever that is in gallons.
But residential use is trivial over all - most water use is in power generation, and most of the rest is agricultural. California is one of the few states that actually uses saltwater for power generation, but still: mostly farms.
Most other city business does not need to be done in a city centre any more. chucking more free ways at is does not solve the problem.
You might be a liberal if your solution to an engineering problem is "everyone else just needs to change how they behave and the problem goes away!"
reality outside those few hours a day they have a 5%(or whatever) usage.
In California (which started this discussion), "peak usage" is the majority of the day. Rush hour is from 6am to 9pm. That's what happens when you won't build enough roads.
And all to try to resolve a few hours a day when peak traffic occurs.
And all to significantly improve everyone's quality of life, by giving them back often significant chunks of time every day they used to spend commuting. It's a worthy goal!
*Appalachians
Apparently I still have the trailer-park spell checker.
Sure, I had it great growing up in a trailer in the Appellations, single mother, etc. Leave me out of your privilege claims and stop fucking stereotyping me based on the color of my skin, you damn racist bigot.
I certainly understand that the mostly upper-middle-class-good-college Social Justice Warriors who have never done anything use with their life feel like they have unearned privilege. Yup, you do. That has little to do with race. Stop assuming that other people who look like you have a similar background. Stop assuming that there aren't people who look nothing like you but have the same background. That's exactly the sort of offensive stereotyping we're trying to stamp out!
Agile Project management methodology has a lot of good features.
Cloud based processing can help the organization.
You can get a lot of useful information from Big Data (Previously Business Intelligence, Previously Decision Support System)
Heck, none of these are very new, other than perhaps the scale of Bug Data. Agile was new around 2000. "Cloud" was all the hype around 2007. These are proven ideas now, though as you say you have to understand them, you can't just move your systems and hope fore the best.
Hosting your email on gmail isn't going to the cloud. Or even just remotely hosting you stuff on cloud systems, isn't embracing the cloud it is just offshoring your data.
A lot of people don't get this yet, though moving all your back-end systems to be cloud-hosted is as good as you can often get with legacy systems. Though the DB servers are often the sticking point (even if you can get cloud-hosted servers that work with your software, which is wonderful when you can, you still need to get the data there, and otherwise you have to be very careful what cloud servers you try to run your own DB servers on - sometimes there's no way).
Obviously, that's a lot of work, to think through security, availability, supportability, and so on, because the solutions to each are different in the cloud. They may be easier once you're done, but it can be quite difficult indeed for admins to abandon their tried-and-true bag of tricks for an environment where they need a new bag!
People don't encounter evolution in their daily lives either, excepting the Flu, but I find it rather important to teach (more stuff in that 100-150 window).
Relativity and QM are easy enough to teach qualitatively (and the math for SR for many examples is simple algebra). There's a host of people who don't believe either, who think modern physics is a hoax, because it contradicts the physics they were taught in school. We should really be teaching "an electron is not like a particle, nor like a wave, but behaves in it's own inimical way" in high school, along with the basics of relativity, so that people get the sense that physics is real, that all this crazy stuff came from explaining experiments, that's it's not storytelling looking for proof!
Now now, Rei, don't exaggerate. US science education sucks, but most people are taught Civil-War Era physics. None of that relativity or quantum stuff that's over 100 years old now, of course, that's too scary, but we do an OK job of teaching 150-year-old science!
It's always worth spending money on infrastructure - it's the legitimate business of the government. It's the sign of civilization. It's the primary indicator of quality of life.
If expanding freeways doesn't reduce traffic jams you haven't expanded them enough If expanding 3 lanes to 4 doesn't help, you may need 7 lanes (7 lanes each way at chokepoints may still not solve it - sometimes you need overlapping offramps, express highways, and similar fixes).
I hate driving in urban areas precisely because the traffic makes it feel like the opposite of freedom
Exactly - lack of needed infrastructure has reduced freedom in those areas. Build more infrastructure; solve the problem.
but I'm not getting the sense that you respect alternative viewpoints on this matter
NIMBY can't be allowed to win, or we become a 3rd-World shithole with no infrastructure. Building infrastructure needs to trump NIMBY - in fact, it's the one legitimate use of Eminent domain.
True enough, but Jag wasn't that terrible when Tata got them. If Tata is serious about improving quality, they don't have far to go. If instead it seeks the quality of the Nano, then starts making forward progress, well, 15 years is optimistic.
Air quality declines, because you increase the number of cars capable of being on the road at the same time. Same with lowering gasoline prices. Make car riding easy, gas-burning increases.
Not so much. Most air-quality problems are caused by cars idling in traffic - the amount of driving people do isn't very elastic, while the amount of fuel burned to get to a given destination can rise dramatically if you spend 80% of the journey not moving.
As for a "better" lfe - first, dump the car. It makes you fat, makes your country go to war repeatedly to protect the oil,
Fuck you hippie. Shave that neckbeard, get a job, buy a car, and then you'll see. Then die in a fire, you fucking hippie.
P.S. Fuck you, you fucking hippie.
Before Tata took over Jag, it had fallen far behind competing brands in terms of cool tech like this for luxury cars. Tata has made great leaps in closing that gap. It's great to see some new stuff as well.
Personally, I'm still a bit skeptical of "Tata quality", given some of their other products, but everyone was equally derisive of the quality of Japanese cars when I was a kid, and Korean cars when I was first driving. Who knows - Tata could pass the Japanese brands for quality in a few years.
I see now why "1 + 1 = 2" was a protest sign under Communism - you can't tell a left anything that conflicts with his community-based-reality.
The goal isn't "reduce traffic", as the freedom to travel by cad is a great thing! The goal is to make life better. Removing traffic jams, getting traffic off surface streets and on to freeways, reducing bumper-to-bumper to improve air quality - all of these can be achieved by adding enough lanes to your freeways. Enough many be quite high number, butt hat's fine: building robust infrastructure to make life better is what my taxes are for.
In most states, it's just silly to use surface streets when there's a freeway - even in rush hour, the freeway will be faster. But California is broken, and they just don't want to build big enough freeways (though LA at least tried, once). Making traffic flow better anywhere is rejected with "but it will bring more traffic" (sure, in the same way building a hospital will bring more deaths). NIMBY for more lanes on the freeway. NIMBY for wider surface streets. NIMBY for everything. The basic understanding that, yes, you can build enough lanes on a freeway was lacking. As a result, it sometimes felt like the entire state was a bumper-to-bumper gridlock, every neighborhood street, everything. Meh, they have the roadways they wanted, let em live with it.
Socialism is always about lying a lot. It's a hook to gain centralized power that people just keep biting at.
Are you going to try to tell us that the TSA was created by leftists?
It's a sign of the cross-over in American politics of the control freaks from the right to the left. (Did you know John Kerry wrote much of the Patriot Act?) When I was young, the moral busybodies and authoritarians were indeed on the right, balanced by the desire on the right for a poorly-funded government that would limit the effect of that. But that seems to have been a brief anomaly, and the moral busybodies and preachy humorless prudes are firmly on the left these days, save for a few elderly Bible-bashers who haven't died off yet.
Hitler thought he was a socialist. His contemporaries thought he was a socialist. The National Socialist Workers Party saw themselves as socialist. He started in power with a straight-up socialist agenda (including the eugenics, lest we forget where he got that from). Denying history won't change it, it just means you can't learn from it. What else do you think Orwell was writing about, passionate socialist that he was? He had seen first hand where socialism can lead if the people aren't careful with it.
I want a living wage, and I don't want to panic about health care and retirement. Even risk-taking super trapeze artists can use a safety net.
You want more government power to give you a living wage. You want more government power to give you health care. You want more government power to give you a safe retirement. You want more government power to protect you from this that and the other thing. Do you ever stop to think what the government will do with all that power once it has it? We only have to look back 75 years to learn the answer - the government is your friend while it accumulates power, but eventually it accumulates enough power that it no longer needs to be your friend.
Political activists love climate change as a way to take control of industry, and have been trumpeting the end of the world for some time now. I doubt there's ever been science to back that up. As the upper atmosphere warms, you necessarily have less atmospheric convection, a.k.a. weather. The only real science I've seen predicting anything drastic has been speculative - that ocean currents have a dramatic effect on local climate, and should climate change cause a shift in those, you could see rapid local warming or cooling - but no specific predictions, just noting it's a chaotic system and we can't predict how it might play out.