As long as you are aware that you are only renting content that is dependent on an internet connection, then fine. I disagree with it philosophically, so I won't "buy" consoles or games where I can't actually own copies of the content. But just because we disagree doesn't mean that either of us is wrong. I just ask that if you see the problematic parts of that type of business practice, you try to keep that in mind when making decisions on which games/developers/markets you support (even if it isn't your primary consideration in those choices).
The point is that restrictions are put in place and the ultimate control over your access and ability to resell is in someone else's hands. Just because your cage is relatively comfortable, doesn't negate the fact that it restricts your freedom.
I don't have any of the latest consoles. I won't support them unless I can actually own a copy of the content (with full ability to play, archive and resell as I choose). The same goes for all of the PC games with phone home license checks and other forms of DRM.
If by "just fine", you mean that it works for a short time until a new login is required.
It must also be "just fine" that you have to go through their service to sell a game and disassociate it from your account, if they allow resale at all.
What's the point of ownership / right of first sale anyway?
Seriously, stop trying to be thought police and address the real issues. You know, like why are people even talking about nationalism and separatism in the first place. How about we rationally talk about why people are upset and what can be done about it rather than just outright ban everything.
You mean actually try to fix the problem? Why would Facebook want that? As it is now, they have the platform and tacit acceptance of the public to be the judges of what ideas/words/images should be banned. That's a rather powerful position to be in.
Not exactly. You assume that "cleaning up" ends up as a net benefit, which isn't necessarily true. If it costs more to clean up recycling than the end product is worth, then you're ultimately spending more in other limited resources (energy, water, labor, etc.) to recycle it than you are saving. It can end up being a net negative, both economically and ecologically. Instead, we would be better off working to reduce the total amount of waste by making one-time use packaging more efficient and switching to durable reusable packaging where possible.
If the cost of cleaning and separating recyclables at the waste processing facility is too high to make it worthwhile, then the same is true of pre-sorted and washed recyclables. It just pushes that cost to the individual waste stream sources, which is great for recycling companies, but not so great for anyone else.
I'm all for easier or just different ways to do things, but arriving algorithmic-ally at a correct answer should NEVER be "wrong."
I agree. It should never be wrong, but it might not fully meet the objective of the assignment. If the point was to learn an alternative method to do the same thing, then partial credit should be given. For things like arithmetic, if they have learned any method to reliably get the correct answer, I think it should count for 75% or more. No need to overly penalize kids when they inevitably "don't get" one of the methods as long as they understand at least one method well enough to get the right answer.
If I was a teacher and my 10 year old pupil turned in homework using a different method than the one I'd taught, the options are (a) they're a child prodigy or (b) someone did their homework for them. I know which I'd assume first.
There's also option (c) they learned another method from someone else.
But then you would have to acknowledge that schools aren't the only possible source of knowledge that exists.
A metric which would be useful if it were accurate, but is not, is not useful. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
They have the data to make it somewhat accurate on an individual basis, so if you had the charger and vehicle communicate the necessary variables for that specific car, then you could provide a decent range per unit time charge value. Though, the charger on its own would still need to be rated in kW for comparison to other chargers.
In that case, the local gas station has a 6000+mph gas pump.
Stupid units. The range is dependent on the efficiency of the vehicle, which varies depending on the vehicle, age and usage. So the rate of range increase at peak charge rate isn't constant. And if that isn't dumb enough already, you should never quote a peak rate over a time interval longer than it can be safely sustained. If they had said it was rated it at 16 & 2/3 miles per minute, then that would at least be achievable for some specific vehicles that fall near whatever efficiency number they assumed.
Have you driven the grapevine? It's not exactly the best terrain to drive at more than about 80mph over. How much earth movement do you think they would need to do to allow a train to go 200+ through it?
In practice, not everyone is as paranoid as I am. If your product provides enough value, some others will be willing to take the risk that you and your technology are trustworthy. Your starting user pool will be a mix of people who already trust you and these naive fools... err.... early adopters.
What law was broken here? It isn't illegal to game online polls. As far as I can tell from the stories so far, the funds were legally reported as a campaign expense. No one seems to be claiming that it was an illegal donation like they were with the hush payments. So where's the issue?
I mean, sure it's "dishonest" to try to influence a poll, but that's about the least dishonest thing political campaigns are doing online as standard practice these days.
Do I think politicians should be better than that? Yes, of course. But news organizations impugning Trump for trying to influence polls that are only there to be gamed or produce a biased view of "public opinion" is hilariously hypocritical.
If you zone for 10 stories and the population or natural resources doesn't support a 10 story building, why can't a developer put a 1 story building there?
They could unless there was a minimum size requirement.
Although completely permissive zoning isn't necessarily best either. If an area is zoned for 1 to 10 story buildings, the infrastructure (water, sewer, trash, power) must be planned to support 10 story size building developments. If you plan for that density in one area, then that means other areas must be limited or cannot be served at all if your city is primarily constrained by a resource other than land (e.g. water supply). Either that or you end up in a situation like LA, where growth outstrips the ability to provide necessary services.
It is relevant because cities aren't necessarily a fixed size and can have undeveloped land within the existing borders. You don't seem to get that point. You're also forgetting that adding "tax efficient" property zoning without the population or natural resources to support that use is still going to fail or go undeveloped. Cities don't lose the money they never could have had.
I'm not saying every city is 100% efficiently utilizing every resource available. What I'm saying is that the optimal city design isn't always high-density.
Have you ever been to the western US? Land is vacant here because no one has much use for it yet. There's plenty of unaffiliated space to build dozens more separate cities. Just a year or so ago Bill Gates bought a 40 mi^2 chunk of land to build his own "smart city" out this way.
Like in a neighboring city with less oppressive laws?
Like in vacant land within the city limits, or by the city expanding the limits to include additional unoccupied land. In much of the western US, there is plenty of land left to grow into.
You think I don't like cars because I want all forms of transit to be treated equally in the eyes of the government?
I think you don't like cars because you single them out to be "treated equally". Are you also in favor of increasing public transit fares similarly to fully cover the cost of development, operation and maintenance? If so, that's a different argument about how taxes should be structured in general, rather than anything to do with transportation.
It's not wrong for people to want to drive everywhere. It's only wrong to force others, especially those who are too poor to drive, to pay more than their fair share for it!
Who is forcing anyone to do anything? There's a different balance in different places depending on the natural constraints/advantages of the land and the desires of the populous. There is no one size fits all solution. Some cities should be dense due to natural features that provide the necessary ingredients for a highly centralized economic engine. Those cities should be built around higher density housing and public transport due to the space inefficiency of cars. Others should be more distributed because there's land available and there isn't a natural economic reason to centralize. This type of city should be built around local, low density neighborhoods interconnected with roads. Then there are places that have a mix of both, a dense urban core with surrounding suburbs and rural areas. These have their own unique challenges around trying to allow people to freely travel between the different areas.
That's not how opportunity cost works. The city doesn't lose anything from the parking lot unless there's nowhere else to build those stores. In places like the western US, land is not a significant constraint, so the opportunity cost is negligible. Hence why things are more spread out.
I get it. You don't like cars and cities being designed to accommodate them. That's fine. There are plenty of dense urban cities that are available for you. Go live there and enjoy your lifestyle. Just quit trying to tell everyone who chooses something different that they are wrong for doing so.
Though, public transit in my city is used by a relatively small minority of the population and represents an outsized proportion of the budget. That means public transport riders generally pay back less of what they use than average.
Just for reference, the population in the metro area around my city drive over 40 Billion miles each year compared to ~150 Million passenger miles on public transport (i.e. ~0.3% of miles traveled are on public transport). The budget for public transport relative to the total for roads maintenance is hard to pin down, but it's much closer to 50% than 0.3%
Who says I don't pay full price? Where I live (not Texas), road maintenance is adequately funded from a variety of sources. I pay those taxes and fees like everyone else who lives here.
You know who definitely doesn't pay full price for their transportation? A public transport rider. The rider fees almost never even pay the operations costs, let alone pay back the infrastructure development.
So if you want to complain about subsidizing lifestyles, then don't look at me.
Just because Illinois doesn't know how to budget for maintenance, it doesn't mean that the same is true everywhere.
Yes, sprawl is due to planning, but it isn't inherently bad unless you consider those who have somewhat different priorities bad people. I happen to like living in a place where it's quiet, there's minimal traffic in my immediate neighborhood, I have some land for me and my family to use privately, easy access to open public space, and I can still get to a good job within ~30 minutes. If you want to live in a high-density walkable city, I can understand that and respect your choice. All I ask is that you do the same for me.
And you're missing my point. Why are they producing and distributing these movies at 4K UHD with HDR for ultra-realistic colors only to have motion blur/judder completely destroy the accuracy of the video? All those extra pixels and higher color bit depth are wasted. They could save quite a lot of money on equipment and digital effects if they limited the resolution to 720p.
I get your point that the more accurate motion capture of high-frame-rate video makes it easier to see the deficiencies. So does high resolution. Why limit frame rate to a century old standard while pushing the pixel count as high as it can possibly go? In other words, if the value of being able to blur out details to make it appear more "cinematic" applies to frame rate, why doesn't it apply to resolution?
Slashdot Mirror
As long as you are aware that you are only renting content that is dependent on an internet connection, then fine. I disagree with it philosophically, so I won't "buy" consoles or games where I can't actually own copies of the content. But just because we disagree doesn't mean that either of us is wrong. I just ask that if you see the problematic parts of that type of business practice, you try to keep that in mind when making decisions on which games/developers/markets you support (even if it isn't your primary consideration in those choices).
The point is that restrictions are put in place and the ultimate control over your access and ability to resell is in someone else's hands. Just because your cage is relatively comfortable, doesn't negate the fact that it restricts your freedom.
I don't have any of the latest consoles. I won't support them unless I can actually own a copy of the content (with full ability to play, archive and resell as I choose). The same goes for all of the PC games with phone home license checks and other forms of DRM.
If by "just fine", you mean that it works for a short time until a new login is required.
It must also be "just fine" that you have to go through their service to sell a game and disassociate it from your account, if they allow resale at all.
What's the point of ownership / right of first sale anyway?
It also works semantically if someone is a nationalist, who happens to be white. Which provides a convenient way to conflate nationalism with racism.
Seriously, stop trying to be thought police and address the real issues. You know, like why are people even talking about nationalism and separatism in the first place. How about we rationally talk about why people are upset and what can be done about it rather than just outright ban everything.
You mean actually try to fix the problem? Why would Facebook want that? As it is now, they have the platform and tacit acceptance of the public to be the judges of what ideas/words/images should be banned. That's a rather powerful position to be in.
Not exactly. You assume that "cleaning up" ends up as a net benefit, which isn't necessarily true. If it costs more to clean up recycling than the end product is worth, then you're ultimately spending more in other limited resources (energy, water, labor, etc.) to recycle it than you are saving. It can end up being a net negative, both economically and ecologically. Instead, we would be better off working to reduce the total amount of waste by making one-time use packaging more efficient and switching to durable reusable packaging where possible.
If the cost of cleaning and separating recyclables at the waste processing facility is too high to make it worthwhile, then the same is true of pre-sorted and washed recyclables. It just pushes that cost to the individual waste stream sources, which is great for recycling companies, but not so great for anyone else.
I'm all for easier or just different ways to do things, but arriving algorithmic-ally at a correct answer should NEVER be "wrong."
I agree. It should never be wrong, but it might not fully meet the objective of the assignment. If the point was to learn an alternative method to do the same thing, then partial credit should be given. For things like arithmetic, if they have learned any method to reliably get the correct answer, I think it should count for 75% or more. No need to overly penalize kids when they inevitably "don't get" one of the methods as long as they understand at least one method well enough to get the right answer.
If I was a teacher and my 10 year old pupil turned in homework using a different method than the one I'd taught, the options are (a) they're a child prodigy or (b) someone did their homework for them. I know which I'd assume first.
There's also option (c) they learned another method from someone else.
But then you would have to acknowledge that schools aren't the only possible source of knowledge that exists.
You have now.
If they don't have the fuel capacity to sustain 253 miles per hour for an hour, then why not call it 4.22 miles/minute?
A metric which would be useful if it were accurate, but is not, is not useful. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
They have the data to make it somewhat accurate on an individual basis, so if you had the charger and vehicle communicate the necessary variables for that specific car, then you could provide a decent range per unit time charge value. Though, the charger on its own would still need to be rated in kW for comparison to other chargers.
In that case, the local gas station has a 6000+mph gas pump.
Stupid units. The range is dependent on the efficiency of the vehicle, which varies depending on the vehicle, age and usage. So the rate of range increase at peak charge rate isn't constant. And if that isn't dumb enough already, you should never quote a peak rate over a time interval longer than it can be safely sustained. If they had said it was rated it at 16 & 2/3 miles per minute, then that would at least be achievable for some specific vehicles that fall near whatever efficiency number they assumed.
Have you driven the grapevine? It's not exactly the best terrain to drive at more than about 80mph over. How much earth movement do you think they would need to do to allow a train to go 200+ through it?
In practice, not everyone is as paranoid as I am. If your product provides enough value, some others will be willing to take the risk that you and your technology are trustworthy. Your starting user pool will be a mix of people who already trust you and these naive fools ... err .... early adopters.
My policy is to never trust someone who is making a point of trying to convince me they are trustworthy.
Trustworthiness should be evident in your actions and no amount of assurances will be enough if that isn't true.
What law was broken here? It isn't illegal to game online polls. As far as I can tell from the stories so far, the funds were legally reported as a campaign expense. No one seems to be claiming that it was an illegal donation like they were with the hush payments. So where's the issue?
I mean, sure it's "dishonest" to try to influence a poll, but that's about the least dishonest thing political campaigns are doing online as standard practice these days.
Do I think politicians should be better than that? Yes, of course. But news organizations impugning Trump for trying to influence polls that are only there to be gamed or produce a biased view of "public opinion" is hilariously hypocritical.
If you zone for 10 stories and the population or natural resources doesn't support a 10 story building, why can't a developer put a 1 story building there?
They could unless there was a minimum size requirement.
Although completely permissive zoning isn't necessarily best either. If an area is zoned for 1 to 10 story buildings, the infrastructure (water, sewer, trash, power) must be planned to support 10 story size building developments. If you plan for that density in one area, then that means other areas must be limited or cannot be served at all if your city is primarily constrained by a resource other than land (e.g. water supply). Either that or you end up in a situation like LA, where growth outstrips the ability to provide necessary services.
It is relevant because cities aren't necessarily a fixed size and can have undeveloped land within the existing borders. You don't seem to get that point. You're also forgetting that adding "tax efficient" property zoning without the population or natural resources to support that use is still going to fail or go undeveloped. Cities don't lose the money they never could have had.
I'm not saying every city is 100% efficiently utilizing every resource available. What I'm saying is that the optimal city design isn't always high-density.
Have you ever been to the western US? Land is vacant here because no one has much use for it yet. There's plenty of unaffiliated space to build dozens more separate cities. Just a year or so ago Bill Gates bought a 40 mi^2 chunk of land to build his own "smart city" out this way.
Seriously, just look at this:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/712129main_8247975848_88635d38a1_o.jpg
Those dark areas are open land. Some of it is public land that we want to preserve, but much of it is just not yet developed.
Like in a neighboring city with less oppressive laws?
Like in vacant land within the city limits, or by the city expanding the limits to include additional unoccupied land. In much of the western US, there is plenty of land left to grow into.
You think I don't like cars because I want all forms of transit to be treated equally in the eyes of the government?
I think you don't like cars because you single them out to be "treated equally". Are you also in favor of increasing public transit fares similarly to fully cover the cost of development, operation and maintenance? If so, that's a different argument about how taxes should be structured in general, rather than anything to do with transportation.
It's not wrong for people to want to drive everywhere. It's only wrong to force others, especially those who are too poor to drive, to pay more than their fair share for it!
Who is forcing anyone to do anything? There's a different balance in different places depending on the natural constraints/advantages of the land and the desires of the populous. There is no one size fits all solution. Some cities should be dense due to natural features that provide the necessary ingredients for a highly centralized economic engine. Those cities should be built around higher density housing and public transport due to the space inefficiency of cars. Others should be more distributed because there's land available and there isn't a natural economic reason to centralize. This type of city should be built around local, low density neighborhoods interconnected with roads. Then there are places that have a mix of both, a dense urban core with surrounding suburbs and rural areas. These have their own unique challenges around trying to allow people to freely travel between the different areas.
That's not how opportunity cost works. The city doesn't lose anything from the parking lot unless there's nowhere else to build those stores. In places like the western US, land is not a significant constraint, so the opportunity cost is negligible. Hence why things are more spread out.
I get it. You don't like cars and cities being designed to accommodate them. That's fine. There are plenty of dense urban cities that are available for you. Go live there and enjoy your lifestyle. Just quit trying to tell everyone who chooses something different that they are wrong for doing so.
Yes, true. It can be spun either way.
Though, public transit in my city is used by a relatively small minority of the population and represents an outsized proportion of the budget. That means public transport riders generally pay back less of what they use than average.
Just for reference, the population in the metro area around my city drive over 40 Billion miles each year compared to ~150 Million passenger miles on public transport (i.e. ~0.3% of miles traveled are on public transport). The budget for public transport relative to the total for roads maintenance is hard to pin down, but it's much closer to 50% than 0.3%
Who says I don't pay full price? Where I live (not Texas), road maintenance is adequately funded from a variety of sources. I pay those taxes and fees like everyone else who lives here.
You know who definitely doesn't pay full price for their transportation? A public transport rider. The rider fees almost never even pay the operations costs, let alone pay back the infrastructure development.
So if you want to complain about subsidizing lifestyles, then don't look at me.
Just because Illinois doesn't know how to budget for maintenance, it doesn't mean that the same is true everywhere.
Yes, sprawl is due to planning, but it isn't inherently bad unless you consider those who have somewhat different priorities bad people. I happen to like living in a place where it's quiet, there's minimal traffic in my immediate neighborhood, I have some land for me and my family to use privately, easy access to open public space, and I can still get to a good job within ~30 minutes. If you want to live in a high-density walkable city, I can understand that and respect your choice. All I ask is that you do the same for me.
And you're missing my point. Why are they producing and distributing these movies at 4K UHD with HDR for ultra-realistic colors only to have motion blur/judder completely destroy the accuracy of the video? All those extra pixels and higher color bit depth are wasted. They could save quite a lot of money on equipment and digital effects if they limited the resolution to 720p.
I get your point that the more accurate motion capture of high-frame-rate video makes it easier to see the deficiencies. So does high resolution. Why limit frame rate to a century old standard while pushing the pixel count as high as it can possibly go? In other words, if the value of being able to blur out details to make it appear more "cinematic" applies to frame rate, why doesn't it apply to resolution?