Good logic, but in this case, the missions of the two planes are complementary, not competitive. BOTH designs ought to win, IMHO.
Again, from a selfish perspective, most of my recent flying has been from Burlington, Vt to Cleveland, Oh. I'm very happy to get on a small Embraer or Bombardier jet and do a straight flight. In the past, it's been a pain to go into and out of a hub, and I wouldn't want to go back to that. In neither case is the A380 relevant to me. (Nor the 787, since the Embraer and Bombardier jets do the job just fine.) But in general, direct flights and avoiding the big hubs is just plain nicer, but when it comes time to go coast-to-coast or overseas, I'm all for economy of scale.
You're absolutely right. As someone else mentioned, it's really sick that we've been groaning for years about erosion of fair use, and here comes a fair use expansion riding on the coattails of "family values." I'm sure any true fair use expansion is targeted, minimal, and accidental. But hey, whatever we can get.
Now we just need a buzzterm for it. Mining, Datamining, ????mining?
Back when they introduced the F16s at the Air Guard, they had an airshow, and one of the planes was the C5A. It came over my house on the way in, and I never saw anything so big flying so slow. It reminded me of a Vogan Destructor. (from the old BBC miniseries) I expect the 747 or A380 might give the same feeling, though I suspect the C5A has a slower takeoff/landing speed.
Why-oh-why-oh-why are we so @#$% obsessed with this single-winner-take-all model!?!
Seems to me that there's room for, and a mission for BOTH the A380 and the 787. BOTH planes have a mission, and make a lot of sense in their respective missions. Trying to force an economic model that excludes one or the other is STUPID! (IMHO)
As far as I can remember, I've only once seen a 747 at the Burlington, Vt airport, which is the biggest in a 3+ hour radius. (Except for Montreal Dorval, across an international border.) There are no regularly scheduled 747s at BTV at all, and I doubt there ever will be. For my situation the 787 looks great, though I suspect that the Bombardier small (51 seat?) jet has been and will be of more use to me.
At the same time, once I have to go into a hub and onto a long haul, the A380 looks great, too.
There's a mission for both. I know the 787 emphasises long range, but that's part fuel economy, which may make it attractive to feed the hubs, as the fleet is replenished. In the long term, I wonder how many A380s between hubs will be fed by 787s servicing those hubs.
Good point. Kind of like how Kirk beat Khan, because the latter was still too 2-dimensional in his thinking.
Extending the idea, it's worth keeping in mind that this thing will be forever a creature of deep space, and therefore may well make feasible novel construction methods that would never hack it in 1G. Take your 3D ideas and let them get thinner and bigger, as appropriate. Imagine, f'rinstance that on the dark side of the sunshade is a double-balloon, with the outer one black, to radiate. Have helium coolant flow between the inner and outer balloons and let the outer surface radiate. Not exactly the way I'd do it on Earth, but low-strength low-density construction may well make it reasonable.
We're missing an opportunity here. This isn't about nuclear space propulsion, this is about:
Permanently removing nuclear material from the Earth
Look at what a wonderful service is being provided, nuclear material is being made to Go Away Forever. The minor factor that it opens up exploration of the solar system is a minor side-effect, we don't need to talk about that. Just think of the nuclear material elimination aspects.
The hurdle is to convince skeptics that it's "Challenger-proof", not "Columbia-proof". Remember that this stuff is never intended to re-enter, only launch and leave, forever. From a materials durability point of view, that's quite a difference. Much more of Challenger was recovered than Columbia, and in better shape. That suggests that nuclear containment might well better survive a launch problem than a reentry one.
You get no "transfer" to that 4K, you just get to radiate into it. As the other response says, you also have solar radiation to contend with. So your radiator has to be mirrored on the sunward side and black on the outward side. As long as your outward side can radiate more than your sunward side absorbs, it's just a matter of scale.
I don't think I was giving you the kneee-jerk response. I merely stated that the purpose of GM is to give those companies higher profit. Where that also does better for farmers and food supply - in th e long term, great. But one should never make the mistake that those companies are doing this for the "greater good of humanity." As long as you know their motivation and can work with it, fine. But keep its limits and side-effects in mind.
As for round-up resistance, the thing that worries me most about it is that I keep hearing about "jumping genes" that move from species to species much more readily in plant and bacteria than in higher animals. It gives me just a bit of fear about how soon we'll have roundup-resistant weeds, and whether that will happen faster because we've put these designer genes into our crops. (Roundup-resistant weeds may also may happen slower this way, for the same reason that antibiotic effectiveness degrades when people quit after they feel better, rather than take the whole treatment. The knockout punch is best.)
Unfortunately I fear you've shot your whole argument with the stuff inside the parenthesis. I also fear that I need to alter it, for the worse:
The "real world" purpose for GM is to increase the profitability of those companies in that market.
That's the marketplace in action, and unfortunately reducing resources has little to do with it, unless the resources reduced are procured from a competitor. I suspect similar reasoning is why medical cannabis is has been an issue between the DEA and alternative medicine anecdotes. IMHO, it should be in FDA studies, but there's just *no profit* in it compared to synthetic drugs.
Just as much a HUMAN RIGHT is it is for the corporations to reap the profits as most of the TV owners in the US are forced to cough up for a set-top box, or quit watching.
Or just as much a HUMAN RIGHT as it is for the FCC to get a windfall as the auction off the current VHF and UHF spectrum, after the changeover.
It's just a mess, that's all. Some might say it's the kind of mess that happens when the government gets involved in what ought to be a market matter.
The one GUI that was able to keep me away from a command line the most was the OS/2 WPS. It *really* annoys me that it seems that Linux is involved in chasing Windows, when they could do better. There was one effort, DFM, that did some of the cosmetics of the WPS, but even that missed the real guts. As to how and why the WPS could keep me away from a command line, that's hard to answer. One aspect was that the functionality of the WPS was designed to be tweaked, both by the aftermarked and the end user. The "Settings" dialogs were able to do a whole lot more than just change the icon and background of a window, you could easily add function.
It seems that in economic discussions, there's a range from (pure) socialism to (pure) capitalism, and most people seem to like to identify themselves with the extremes. I tend to be a die-hard moderate.
My simplistic argument against (pure) socialism is that it ignores greed as a motivation, and that everyone will do their best out of Love of the Masses. Essentially, IMHO it's unrealistic.
My simplistic argument against (pure) capitalism is that it's uncivilized. Take good old "Law of the Jungle, red in tooth and claw," and replace it with "Law of the Market, green in tooth and claw." It simply redefines Power to be economic prowess instead of physical prowess. At the same time, it counts on a civilization that will protect the economically powerful from the physically powerful, BUT not vice versa.
So then what is "civilization" and what do we expect of it? Personally, I want freedom of action, within well-defined parameters, as much freedom as possible. There are certain things I won't do to others, and I don't want them doing those things to me. Essentially, I'll mind my business, and you mind yours.
I grow more cynical about private enterprise when it starts trying to act like a government, and starts forcing people to do things. Here's one example, using everyone's whipping boy, and boy in this case do they deserve to be whipped: http://clevescene.com/issues/2005-03-30/ news/featu re_print.html Here's another thing I came across recently, not quite the same type of abuse: http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.a sp?Artic leID=1898%20 You can argue that, "They signed the contract, they have to live by it," on one the hand. On the other hand, the company can ALWAYS hire someone better at the Law than I am, or can afford to.
I guess this side of it comes down to a view of corporations that has emerged in the past few decades, "Corporations are in business ONLY to make money, and are responsible ONLY to their stockholders." At face value, that has come to sound reasonable, but let's look at it a different way. You want someone to fix your car, so you decide to interview mechanics: Mechanic1: "I've always liked cars, since before I was a teenager. I rebuilt my first engine when I was 12 and have moved on from there. In recent years I've been learning about the new computerized engines. This career path is a natural for me, I believe I can do well at it, and earn a good living for my family." Mechanic2: "A few years into my studies as an economics major, I realized that *everything* is subject to offshoring except on-the-spot services. Plumbing was too dirty, construction too hot and too likely to get me injured, so car repair was the obvious choice. I went to tech school, and here I am." Who do you want working on your car?
For that matter, what type of person do you want for a friend or neighbor?
Outta time, gotta go. Answer this when you get a chance, so your old comment doesn't spool off, and I'll add more. (Clue: government is (usually) sufficiently inefficient to be less of a bother to me.)
I remember getting a really bad whine on a drive on an old XT. At the time, (mid 1980's) the company had an internal equivalent to newsgroups, and others had had this problem, and a solution.
It was the grounding strap for the spindle - since the contact was made on soft metal, eventually the spindle wore a little divot into it, and it started chattering. The fix was simple, just loosen the screw and move the strap a little. After a while, it wore a new divot in the new location, so you'd have to move it, again. A few moves and the PC was obsolete, and got replaced.
Not quite anti-gravity, or even really microgravity. Instead, it was filmed on a Vomit-Comet-like airplane. Penn Gillette wrote about it, in his article about his rental of the same plane.
For the sake of argument, I'm going to make a gross simplification, by taking some present trends and max'ing them out. So for a start point, let's imagine that all mfg and tech work moves overnight to India and China, and all that's left in the US are high-paid executives, (busy giving themselves big bonuses for having cut costs by shipping all mfg and tech overseas) and service sector jobs and other jobs that can't move, like construction.
The mass market for SUVs, HDTVs, fancy computers, etc, is gone, since garden-variety service sector workers can't afford them. So the US executives ain't going to sell to a mass market on these shores, any more, because the mass market can't afford them without mfg and tech jobs.
Here's where the timing comes in. Presumably the standard of living rises in India and China. But the real question is how long it will take before they're making enough money to buy SUVs, HDTVs, fancy computers, etc. If the standard of living there hasn't risen before it crashes here, those companies go down the toilet, or at least restructure almost beyond recognition, because the lion's share of their customers are gone. I heard recently that China could take over EVERY job in the US, and still have an unemployment problem. So it's not clear when their wages will have to begin rising.
Even if that nightmare scenario doesn't quite come to pass, at some point it will become obvious that the US is only furnishing highly-paid executives that don't contribute to the bottom line in proportion to their salaries. In the slightly longer run, expect the executive functions to outsource as well, even if in the guise of new home-grown businesses. Brand loyalty will take time to shift, but given their domestic markets, that's not a big problem.
It's possible that everyone will win, but given the prevalence of short-thinking greed in the US, I think it far more likely that most of us in the US will lose, and even in China/India their standard-of-living ramp will be slower than it could ideally be.
What we're REALLY talking about is blue-sky, no immediate payback, research. That is, research with a true eye to the future, not the next quarter or two, the kind of research that got us where we are today. That's the realm of deep pockets and minimal (or at least enlightened/tolerant) oversight - by stockholders or congressmen. That's also the kind of research that has been all-but-destroyed in the US by beancounting, be it corporate finance types, stockholder expectations, Congress, etc.
The US could well be moving in to an era where the only true research, the long-range stuff, goes "black" - "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you."
For another perspective, see: http://technocrat.net/article.pl?sid=05/04/1 0/1312 50&mode=thread Then combine it with the fact that there are others who DO see the value of long-term research: http://technocrat.net/article.pl?sid=05 /04/10/1392 50&mode=thread
Scary thing was, less than a month after that SNL episode, some friends a few hours away invited me to visit for my birthday, and took me to a (My first, last, and only.) Star Trek convention. They had "Get a Life!" and "It was just a TV show" T-shirts on sale.
Search on this along with "David Brin", author of the Uplift novels. He had an interesting take on Star Trek vs Star Wars, with his preference of the former based on the fact that it uses real people, and those people becoming their best. In Star Wars, matters are decided by "demigods" like Luke, Anakin, etc with supernormal powers, and whatever mere humans do or try to become just doesn't matter.
Of course William Shatner put it all right, back on SNL. "It was just a TV show!"
He used to work at a company that did vending service for the company I work for. When Susan B. came out, my company insisted that his company gear up the vending machines to handle it, so they did. Problem was with the vending machines near the machine shops. Within a week, the Susan B. Anthony slug was produced. Back then coffee cost $.15, so they'd get $.85 change, too. A hidden camera soon put a stop to that, and a few careers.
Slashdot Mirror
Good logic, but in this case, the missions of the two planes are complementary, not competitive. BOTH designs ought to win, IMHO.
Again, from a selfish perspective, most of my recent flying has been from Burlington, Vt to Cleveland, Oh. I'm very happy to get on a small Embraer or Bombardier jet and do a straight flight. In the past, it's been a pain to go into and out of a hub, and I wouldn't want to go back to that. In neither case is the A380 relevant to me. (Nor the 787, since the Embraer and Bombardier jets do the job just fine.) But in general, direct flights and avoiding the big hubs is just plain nicer, but when it comes time to go coast-to-coast or overseas, I'm all for economy of scale.
And I thought it mostly worked on campaign contributions, and popularity of an issue was second. (or the popularity was bought by the contributor)
You're absolutely right. As someone else mentioned, it's really sick that we've been groaning for years about erosion of fair use, and here comes a fair use expansion riding on the coattails of "family values." I'm sure any true fair use expansion is targeted, minimal, and accidental. But hey, whatever we can get.
Now we just need a buzzterm for it. Mining, Datamining, ????mining?
Back when they introduced the F16s at the Air Guard, they had an airshow, and one of the planes was the C5A. It came over my house on the way in, and I never saw anything so big flying so slow. It reminded me of a Vogan Destructor. (from the old BBC miniseries) I expect the 747 or A380 might give the same feeling, though I suspect the C5A has a slower takeoff/landing speed.
Why-oh-why-oh-why are we so @#$% obsessed with this single-winner-take-all model!?!
Seems to me that there's room for, and a mission for BOTH the A380 and the 787. BOTH planes have a mission, and make a lot of sense in their respective missions. Trying to force an economic model that excludes one or the other is STUPID! (IMHO)
As far as I can remember, I've only once seen a 747 at the Burlington, Vt airport, which is the biggest in a 3+ hour radius. (Except for Montreal Dorval, across an international border.) There are no regularly scheduled 747s at BTV at all, and I doubt there ever will be. For my situation the 787 looks great, though I suspect that the Bombardier small (51 seat?) jet has been and will be of more use to me.
At the same time, once I have to go into a hub and onto a long haul, the A380 looks great, too.
There's a mission for both. I know the 787 emphasises long range, but that's part fuel economy, which may make it attractive to feed the hubs, as the fleet is replenished. In the long term, I wonder how many A380s between hubs will be fed by 787s servicing those hubs.
Good point. Kind of like how Kirk beat Khan, because the latter was still too 2-dimensional in his thinking.
Extending the idea, it's worth keeping in mind that this thing will be forever a creature of deep space, and therefore may well make feasible novel construction methods that would never hack it in 1G. Take your 3D ideas and let them get thinner and bigger, as appropriate. Imagine, f'rinstance that on the dark side of the sunshade is a double-balloon, with the outer one black, to radiate. Have helium coolant flow between the inner and outer balloons and let the outer surface radiate. Not exactly the way I'd do it on Earth, but low-strength low-density construction may well make it reasonable.
Consider it to be job security, and hope that more new gizmos keep coming out that need retraining for your users.
We're missing an opportunity here. This isn't about nuclear space propulsion, this is about:
Permanently removing nuclear material from the Earth
Look at what a wonderful service is being provided, nuclear material is being made to Go Away Forever. The minor factor that it opens up exploration of the solar system is a minor side-effect, we don't need to talk about that. Just think of the nuclear material elimination aspects.
The hurdle is to convince skeptics that it's "Challenger-proof", not "Columbia-proof". Remember that this stuff is never intended to re-enter, only launch and leave, forever. From a materials durability point of view, that's quite a difference. Much more of Challenger was recovered than Columbia, and in better shape. That suggests that nuclear containment might well better survive a launch problem than a reentry one.
I don't know if this is meant as humor, or not.
You get no "transfer" to that 4K, you just get to radiate into it. As the other response says, you also have solar radiation to contend with. So your radiator has to be mirrored on the sunward side and black on the outward side. As long as your outward side can radiate more than your sunward side absorbs, it's just a matter of scale.
I don't think I was giving you the kneee-jerk response. I merely stated that the purpose of GM is to give those companies higher profit. Where that also does better for farmers and food supply - in th e long term, great. But one should never make the mistake that those companies are doing this for the "greater good of humanity." As long as you know their motivation and can work with it, fine. But keep its limits and side-effects in mind.
As for round-up resistance, the thing that worries me most about it is that I keep hearing about "jumping genes" that move from species to species much more readily in plant and bacteria than in higher animals. It gives me just a bit of fear about how soon we'll have roundup-resistant weeds, and whether that will happen faster because we've put these designer genes into our crops. (Roundup-resistant weeds may also may happen slower this way, for the same reason that antibiotic effectiveness degrades when people quit after they feel better, rather than take the whole treatment. The knockout punch is best.)
If you're going to retread an OLD joke, at least get the Joke, rather than Joke/2.
OS/2 was first co-announced with the PS/2. (Microchannel, for you young'uns) So the whole joke was:
Half an operating system on half a computer.
Unfortunately I fear you've shot your whole argument with the stuff inside the parenthesis. I also fear that I need to alter it, for the worse:
The "real world" purpose for GM is to increase the profitability of those companies in that market.
That's the marketplace in action, and unfortunately reducing resources has little to do with it, unless the resources reduced are procured from a competitor. I suspect similar reasoning is why medical cannabis is has been an issue between the DEA and alternative medicine anecdotes. IMHO, it should be in FDA studies, but there's just *no profit* in it compared to synthetic drugs.
Just as much a HUMAN RIGHT is it is for the corporations to reap the profits as most of the TV owners in the US are forced to cough up for a set-top box, or quit watching.
Or just as much a HUMAN RIGHT as it is for the FCC to get a windfall as the auction off the current VHF and UHF spectrum, after the changeover.
It's just a mess, that's all. Some might say it's the kind of mess that happens when the government gets involved in what ought to be a market matter.
Good first step for making fried ice cream or baked Alaska.
The one GUI that was able to keep me away from a command line the most was the OS/2 WPS. It *really* annoys me that it seems that Linux is involved in chasing Windows, when they could do better. There was one effort, DFM, that did some of the cosmetics of the WPS, but even that missed the real guts. As to how and why the WPS could keep me away from a command line, that's hard to answer. One aspect was that the functionality of the WPS was designed to be tweaked, both by the aftermarked and the end user. The "Settings" dialogs were able to do a whole lot more than just change the icon and background of a window, you could easily add function.
Oh well, command lines aren't bad, anyway.
It seems that in economic discussions, there's a range from (pure) socialism to (pure) capitalism, and most people seem to like to identify themselves with the extremes. I tend to be a die-hard moderate.
/ news/featu re_print.htmla sp?Artic leID=1898%20
My simplistic argument against (pure) socialism is that it ignores greed as a motivation, and that everyone will do their best out of Love of the Masses. Essentially, IMHO it's unrealistic.
My simplistic argument against (pure) capitalism is that it's uncivilized. Take good old "Law of the Jungle, red in tooth and claw," and replace it with "Law of the Market, green in tooth and claw." It simply redefines Power to be economic prowess instead of physical prowess. At the same time, it counts on a civilization that will protect the economically powerful from the physically powerful, BUT not vice versa.
So then what is "civilization" and what do we expect of it? Personally, I want freedom of action, within well-defined parameters, as much freedom as possible. There are certain things I won't do to others, and I don't want them doing those things to me. Essentially, I'll mind my business, and you mind yours.
I grow more cynical about private enterprise when it starts trying to act like a government, and starts forcing people to do things. Here's one example, using everyone's whipping boy, and boy in this case do they deserve to be whipped:
http://clevescene.com/issues/2005-03-30
Here's another thing I came across recently, not quite the same type of abuse:
http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.
You can argue that, "They signed the contract, they have to live by it," on one the hand. On the other hand, the company can ALWAYS hire someone better at the Law than I am, or can afford to.
I guess this side of it comes down to a view of corporations that has emerged in the past few decades, "Corporations are in business ONLY to make money, and are responsible ONLY to their stockholders." At face value, that has come to sound reasonable, but let's look at it a different way. You want someone to fix your car, so you decide to interview mechanics:
Mechanic1: "I've always liked cars, since before I was a teenager. I rebuilt my first engine when I was 12 and have moved on from there. In recent years I've been learning about the new computerized engines. This career path is a natural for me, I believe I can do well at it, and earn a good living for my family."
Mechanic2: "A few years into my studies as an economics major, I realized that *everything* is subject to offshoring except on-the-spot services. Plumbing was too dirty, construction too hot and too likely to get me injured, so car repair was the obvious choice. I went to tech school, and here I am."
Who do you want working on your car?
For that matter, what type of person do you want for a friend or neighbor?
Outta time, gotta go. Answer this when you get a chance, so your old comment doesn't spool off, and I'll add more. (Clue: government is (usually) sufficiently inefficient to be less of a bother to me.)
The bands can't leave. See threads above. Their parents signed them to lifetime contracts when they were 15.
I remember getting a really bad whine on a drive on an old XT. At the time, (mid 1980's) the company had an internal equivalent to newsgroups, and others had had this problem, and a solution.
It was the grounding strap for the spindle - since the contact was made on soft metal, eventually the spindle wore a little divot into it, and it started chattering. The fix was simple, just loosen the screw and move the strap a little. After a while, it wore a new divot in the new location, so you'd have to move it, again. A few moves and the PC was obsolete, and got replaced.
...for the output (or input, for that matter) transistors in my really 133t stereo amplifier design with DC-to-light frequency response.
Already there, called "The Uranus Experiment."
Not quite anti-gravity, or even really microgravity. Instead, it was filmed on a Vomit-Comet-like airplane. Penn Gillette wrote about it, in his article about his rental of the same plane.
Haven't seen it, yet. Maybe one of these days...
There's a potential timing problem, here:
For the sake of argument, I'm going to make a gross simplification, by taking some present trends and max'ing them out. So for a start point, let's imagine that all mfg and tech work moves overnight to India and China, and all that's left in the US are high-paid executives, (busy giving themselves big bonuses for having cut costs by shipping all mfg and tech overseas) and service sector jobs and other jobs that can't move, like construction.
The mass market for SUVs, HDTVs, fancy computers, etc, is gone, since garden-variety service sector workers can't afford them. So the US executives ain't going to sell to a mass market on these shores, any more, because the mass market can't afford them without mfg and tech jobs.
Here's where the timing comes in. Presumably the standard of living rises in India and China. But the real question is how long it will take before they're making enough money to buy SUVs, HDTVs, fancy computers, etc. If the standard of living there hasn't risen before it crashes here, those companies go down the toilet, or at least restructure almost beyond recognition, because the lion's share of their customers are gone. I heard recently that China could take over EVERY job in the US, and still have an unemployment problem. So it's not clear when their wages will have to begin rising.
Even if that nightmare scenario doesn't quite come to pass, at some point it will become obvious that the US is only furnishing highly-paid executives that don't contribute to the bottom line in proportion to their salaries. In the slightly longer run, expect the executive functions to outsource as well, even if in the guise of new home-grown businesses. Brand loyalty will take time to shift, but given their domestic markets, that's not a big problem.
It's possible that everyone will win, but given the prevalence of short-thinking greed in the US, I think it far more likely that most of us in the US will lose, and even in China/India their standard-of-living ramp will be slower than it could ideally be.
Thinking about this for a minute...
1 0/1312 50&mode=thread5 /04/10/1392 50&mode=thread
What we're REALLY talking about is blue-sky, no immediate payback, research. That is, research with a true eye to the future, not the next quarter or two, the kind of research that got us where we are today. That's the realm of deep pockets and minimal (or at least enlightened/tolerant) oversight - by stockholders or congressmen. That's also the kind of research that has been all-but-destroyed in the US by beancounting, be it corporate finance types, stockholder expectations, Congress, etc.
The US could well be moving in to an era where the only true research, the long-range stuff, goes "black" - "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you."
For another perspective, see:
http://technocrat.net/article.pl?sid=05/04/
Then combine it with the fact that there are others who DO see the value of long-term research:
http://technocrat.net/article.pl?sid=0
Scary thing was, less than a month after that SNL episode, some friends a few hours away invited me to visit for my birthday, and took me to a (My first, last, and only.) Star Trek convention. They had "Get a Life!" and "It was just a TV show" T-shirts on sale.
Now you're going...
Search on this along with "David Brin", author of the Uplift novels. He had an interesting take on Star Trek vs Star Wars, with his preference of the former based on the fact that it uses real people, and those people becoming their best. In Star Wars, matters are decided by "demigods" like Luke, Anakin, etc with supernormal powers, and whatever mere humans do or try to become just doesn't matter.
Of course William Shatner put it all right, back on SNL. "It was just a TV show!"
Old story from a friend about Susan B.
He used to work at a company that did vending service for the company I work for. When Susan B. came out, my company insisted that his company gear up the vending machines to handle it, so they did. Problem was with the vending machines near the machine shops. Within a week, the Susan B. Anthony slug was produced. Back then coffee cost $.15, so they'd get $.85 change, too. A hidden camera soon put a stop to that, and a few careers.