That's the thing, one reaches a tipping-point, but it's not reached on something that limited in size and duration. (~100 people, several-month mission)
If you where having 10.000 people on a 10 year mission, a mixed crew and a more "civilian" organization would definitely be the way to go. But for a smaller/shorter mission, a strict command-hierarchy is likely to work better.
I don't know where exactly the tipping-point is, neither does anyone else I suspect.
Don't think so. Group dynamics in purely (or nearly purely) female groups are typically much worse than in a mixed group, or even an all-male one. Conflicts in the workplace for example are typically worse in jobs dominated by females than in more mixed environments.
What you say is true to a point, male-dominated workplaces are often relatively rigorous hierarchies. But that is one organization that does -work- even though it has severe problems with for example flexibility.
Notice how ballistic submarines is a good example of an environment where, frankly, a rigorous hierarchy is probably the way to go.
But most (atleast many!) people do neither -- they NEITHER carry a camera on their person at all times, NOR do they take pictures with their camera-phones.
There just isn't that much of a pressing need to take pictures all the time. Yes, I can see some surprise situations where having a camera could be handy, such as for collecting evidence who is at fault in a car-accident, or something that you REALLY want pictures of happen, and you don't have your camera on you.
Still, this don't happen often. I do have a phone with a camera. I do know how to use it. I've wanted to. There just hasn't been any of those situations. When I *do* want to take pictures I bring the DSLR, or the point-and-shoot if it's for an even where a DSLR gets in the way.
If it was a choice between EITHER carrying a camera at all times OR taking pictures with the camera-phone, I'd agree with you.
But most people do neither of these two. Infact a large fraction of people never take pictures at all, or very very seldom.
A $100 digital camera is generally hugely superior to the ones integrated in mobile phones in every way that counts; better autofocus, better lenses, better sensor-chip, better (though crappy) flash, faster serial-shooting, better usability, easier transfer of images, better automatic programs, better configurability, better software.
Most people have no need for a DSLR -- even most people who ARENT happy with a camera-phone.
And most of the people who HAVE a need for a DSLR is happy with a $1000 one.
If you're even considering a $3000 DSLR, you're way into territory where camera-phones are laughable.
I don't -mind- the camera being there. It's not in the way or anything. I don't *use* it though, I'm not sure what supposed to be problematic about this.
In my market ~90% of the models sold are camera-phones, and most of the ones without a camera are poor-quality generally. I don't need, nor would I pay for, the camera as such. But I do like a reasonable keyboard, battery-life and screen. And when I want those, I get the camera whether I want it or not.
So it doesn't surprise me that many people have phones with tons of features they never use. I do to.
No. That's not true. Remember that the observable limit recedes at c too.
Imagine objects A B C spatially arranged on a line, with a distance of 1 ly.
If this universe is 1.5 years old, B can "see" A and C, but they can't see oneanother. So far so good.
But if something happens at A that influences B, it'll take 1 year *before* it influences B. And *another* year before C can observe that influence. By this time it can however observe A directly too.
Put differently, photons (or anything else) don't get any quicker from A to C by bouncing off the surface of B, that makes no sense at all.
Yes, expansion makes more of a mess of it, but it doesn't change the basic facts.
If you can observe X having an influence on Y, then you are observing X. Seriously.
Sorta. I mean, you'd not need to configure ports and deal with mappings. But instead you'd need to much about with the firewall-rules.
Overall it's a tossup.
It's contradictory anyway. If we're seeing something influenced by it, then we ARE observing it. That's what observation MEAN.
If you're "watching" something, you're really interpreting electrical signals generated by your retina in response to chemical reactions triggered by photons, nothing "direct" about it whatsoever.
So saying we're seeing something being influenced by something outside the observable universe is nonsense.
I know. I was just commenting on the folly of having a unbounded variable and labeling the three main spectra in use on a certain date "low" "medium" and "high".
That way lays madness, because soon thereafter you need "very" high, thereafter "extremely" high, etc....
LF
Low Frequency
MF
Medium Frequency
HF
High Frequency
VHF
Vergy High Frequency
UHF
Ultra High Frequency
SHF
Super High Frequency
EHF
Extremely High Frequency
Still waiting for Ludicrously High Frequency.... Seriously..
Even that is only true if data-storage costs are constant -- or employee-data grows parallell to cost-falling. Which seems unlikely.
Storing something for a year costs half of storing it forever, more like it, because storage-costs drop like a lead balloon and data grow.
If I were to delete EVERY file in my home-directory that is more than 3 years old -- I'd save 15% of the space used. If I where to delete every file more than 5 years old, I'd save 4% of the space used.
This particular problem can offcourse easily be worked around, by measures such as traveling without a laptop, or traveling with a naked one and downloading my data once I'm inside US-borders.
But the general idea of being treated like a criminal is offensive to me. I will not submit to having my property randomly confiscated by state-officials with no reasonable grounds for suspicion, having data on my ticket-purchase and other personal information (such as if I booked a hotel-room and if so if it was a double or single one) submitted to government-databases.
So I opt out. I haven't visited USA since 9/11. And I won't again aslong as you don't respect basic civility, like only treating people as criminals when there's actually some REASONABLE grounds for suspecting that --- and even then, be prepared to cover any and all damages if it later turns ouyt the suspicion was wrong.
I'm innocent until the oposite has been proven -- not the other way around.
A battery has significant internal resistance, even if you short-circuit it the power-levels are limited. (high, but limited)
A capacitator can recharge significantly faster.
Put differently, the thing may only hold 10% of the energy in a battery. But if that energy is released a hundred times quicker, you're still looking at hell of a bang.
But it's silly: You don't have that right, regardless of if they tell you about it or not. So why do they need to in-your-face nag you about it ?
When you buy a bottle of Coke, you don't have to click to make "The Coca-Cola logo is trademarked blablabla and cannot be used without permission of the blablabla...." thing go away.
Why does Firefox feel they "must" be more annoying ?
You're confused. I don't know where you got the idea that monopolies are illegal. They certainly are not and have to my knowledge never been.
Certian -practices- are illegal IF you are a monopoly. But that's different.
Indeed, selling copyrigthed material is a monopoly by definition; a single entity, the one owning the copyright, is the ONLY one who can legally make copies of and sell the material.
You are right, there are rules and I was being sloppy. My apologies.
What I meant is that in general the rules don't seem to be very strict when it comes to energy-efficiency, not that the quality of the work done is in general any more (or any less) shoddy than elsewhere.
It's nice that energy-ratings are "on the rise", meanwhile elsewhere they've been compulsory for a decade. That's what I meant.
I also said that more stringent rules DO have a backside; there are obvious drawbacks to having the state mandate minimum standards. A more "nanny"-like state isn't in general desireable, even though in some cases it may be nessecary. The trick is to strike the right balance.
You're right. I was being imprecise. True. The US does have minimum building-standards. They are chiefly concerned with safety though.
It's just that they don't generally include very stringent demands when it comes to the building being energy-efficient.
For example, as far as I know there's no rule whatsoever on how airtight a new building must be, nor on heat-transfer trough windows or walls or heating-options.
(in contrast, if you build a new building intended as a permanent residence here, there are stringent rules for all of the above)
I realize you're sorta joking, but I think there's a truth to it. Not that people LIKE poor construction, but that people LIKE being allowed to build poorly and cheaply, if they so choose. Having the state mandate minimum building-standards, as is the case in Scandinavia, feels a lot like a "nanny-state" to many. There's truth to that too -- there IS value in increased freedom, even if it's just freedom to build crappy houses.
Unfortunately, many people aren't even AWARE that they house they're buying is crappy, it's hard for someone who isn't knowledgeable to notice the difference. And it's not as if it's mandated to have new houses tested, or to INFORM the buyer of the energy-rating of the house.
That should IMHO be added. A new house is a significant investment, well worth the cost of an appraisal. If people then choose to buy the sucky house anyway, DESPITE knowing how sucky it is, I say let them.
The data is very thoroughly in. There's some uncertanity about the finer details, but the basic idea is as valid as it's going to get.
I don't get the US obsession with ANYTHING other than changing own behaviour. It's not as if you need to live poorly to significantly cut emissions. Sweden, for example, has a living-standard and GDP on the same level as USA, despite actually harsher climate, and their emissions are aproximately HALF of American levels pro capita.
Hell, some of the changes bring significant ADVANTAGES to standard of living. It's not as if it's a BENEFIT to live in a poorly insulated house where the wind blows trough, more or less. (okay okay, I'm exagerating, but it's a fact that the building-standards are substantially better in Sweden than in the US)
And it's not as if Sweden couldn't also be doing more with reasonable simple changes.
It's not infact hard to cut 2/3rds. That is likely to bring significant advantages over the current US-alternative which seems to be pretty close to "do nothing".
It's easy to fill 16GB by much more mundane means. For example taking photos with my 2-year-old digital camera produces 10MB every time I push the button. If it was a new or expensive one it'd produce more. 100 pictures is a gigabyte. 1600 pictures is 16GB.
But I need programs and an OS and other stuff too, probably atleast 5GB worth of other stuff, so I could store no more than 1000 pictures. I've got much more than 1000 pictures, hell I've got more than 1000 pictures from the last year.
16GB ain't that much. If you'd said 160GB, then ok.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably, yes.
That's the thing, one reaches a tipping-point, but it's not reached on something that limited in size and duration. (~100 people, several-month mission)
If you where having 10.000 people on a 10 year mission, a mixed crew and a more "civilian" organization would definitely be the way to go. But for a smaller/shorter mission, a strict command-hierarchy is likely to work better.
I don't know where exactly the tipping-point is, neither does anyone else I suspect.
Don't think so. Group dynamics in purely (or nearly purely) female groups are typically much worse than in a mixed group, or even an all-male one. Conflicts in the workplace for example are typically worse in jobs dominated by females than in more mixed environments.
What you say is true to a point, male-dominated workplaces are often relatively rigorous hierarchies. But that is one organization that does -work- even though it has severe problems with for example flexibility.
Notice how ballistic submarines is a good example of an environment where, frankly, a rigorous hierarchy is probably the way to go.
true enough. Just intended to illustrate a trivial example. But its a bad example, you are right.
It's okay in trivial cases. can_drink = (age>18) ? True : False
But using it in anything complex should be a capital offence.
But most (atleast many!) people do neither -- they NEITHER carry a camera on their person at all times, NOR do they take pictures with their camera-phones.
There just isn't that much of a pressing need to take pictures all the time. Yes, I can see some surprise situations where having a camera could be handy, such as for collecting evidence who is at fault in a car-accident, or something that you REALLY want pictures of happen, and you don't have your camera on you.
Still, this don't happen often. I do have a phone with a camera. I do know how to use it. I've wanted to. There just hasn't been any of those situations. When I *do* want to take pictures I bring the DSLR, or the point-and-shoot if it's for an even where a DSLR gets in the way.
If it was a choice between EITHER carrying a camera at all times OR taking pictures with the camera-phone, I'd agree with you.
But most people do neither of these two. Infact a large fraction of people never take pictures at all, or very very seldom.
Beside; you're joking about the $3000 DSLR, no ?
A $100 digital camera is generally hugely superior to the ones integrated in mobile phones in every way that counts; better autofocus, better lenses, better sensor-chip, better (though crappy) flash, faster serial-shooting, better usability, easier transfer of images, better automatic programs, better configurability, better software.
Most people have no need for a DSLR -- even most people who ARENT happy with a camera-phone.
And most of the people who HAVE a need for a DSLR is happy with a $1000 one.
If you're even considering a $3000 DSLR, you're way into territory where camera-phones are laughable.
I don't -mind- the camera being there. It's not in the way or anything. I don't *use* it though, I'm not sure what supposed to be problematic about this. In my market ~90% of the models sold are camera-phones, and most of the ones without a camera are poor-quality generally. I don't need, nor would I pay for, the camera as such. But I do like a reasonable keyboard, battery-life and screen. And when I want those, I get the camera whether I want it or not. So it doesn't surprise me that many people have phones with tons of features they never use. I do to.
No. That's not true. Remember that the observable limit recedes at c too.
Imagine objects A B C spatially arranged on a line, with a distance of 1 ly.
If this universe is 1.5 years old, B can "see" A and C, but they can't see oneanother. So far so good.
But if something happens at A that influences B, it'll take 1 year *before* it influences B. And *another* year before C can observe that influence. By this time it can however observe A directly too.
Put differently, photons (or anything else) don't get any quicker from A to C by bouncing off the surface of B, that makes no sense at all.
Yes, expansion makes more of a mess of it, but it doesn't change the basic facts.
If you can observe X having an influence on Y, then you are observing X. Seriously.
It doesn't matter.
The point is, if we can observe some consequence of X, then by definition, X is in our observable universe.
Sorta. I mean, you'd not need to configure ports and deal with mappings. But instead you'd need to much about with the firewall-rules. Overall it's a tossup.
It's contradictory anyway. If we're seeing something influenced by it, then we ARE observing it. That's what observation MEAN.
If you're "watching" something, you're really interpreting electrical signals generated by your retina in response to chemical reactions triggered by photons, nothing "direct" about it whatsoever.
So saying we're seeing something being influenced by something outside the observable universe is nonsense.
I know. I was just commenting on the folly of having a unbounded variable and labeling the three main spectra in use on a certain date "low" "medium" and "high". That way lays madness, because soon thereafter you need "very" high, thereafter "extremely" high, etc....
Still waiting for Ludicrously High Frequency.... Seriously..
Even that is only true if data-storage costs are constant -- or employee-data grows parallell to cost-falling. Which seems unlikely.
Storing something for a year costs half of storing it forever, more like it, because storage-costs drop like a lead balloon and data grow.
If I were to delete EVERY file in my home-directory that is more than 3 years old -- I'd save 15% of the space used. If I where to delete every file more than 5 years old, I'd save 4% of the space used.
Which frankly ain't worth it.
The only sensible advice, really.
This particular problem can offcourse easily be worked around, by measures such as traveling without a laptop, or traveling with a naked one and downloading my data once I'm inside US-borders.
But the general idea of being treated like a criminal is offensive to me. I will not submit to having my property randomly confiscated by state-officials with no reasonable grounds for suspicion, having data on my ticket-purchase and other personal information (such as if I booked a hotel-room and if so if it was a double or single one) submitted to government-databases.
So I opt out. I haven't visited USA since 9/11. And I won't again aslong as you don't respect basic civility, like only treating people as criminals when there's actually some REASONABLE grounds for suspecting that --- and even then, be prepared to cover any and all damages if it later turns ouyt the suspicion was wrong.
I'm innocent until the oposite has been proven -- not the other way around.
Sure. And spend some of the (already-too-small) amount of energy in the cap for heating the resistor.
More energy, true, but slower release-rate.
A battery has significant internal resistance, even if you short-circuit it the power-levels are limited. (high, but limited)
A capacitator can recharge significantly faster.
Put differently, the thing may only hold 10% of the energy in a battery. But if that energy is released a hundred times quicker, you're still looking at hell of a bang.
But it's silly: You don't have that right, regardless of if they tell you about it or not. So why do they need to in-your-face nag you about it ?
When you buy a bottle of Coke, you don't have to click to make "The Coca-Cola logo is trademarked blablabla and cannot be used without permission of the blablabla...." thing go away.
Why does Firefox feel they "must" be more annoying ?
True enough.
But such an implicit license would not gice Google the rigth to use your material for other purposes, such as advertising their service.
So you're right; Google doesn't "need" this to be able to operate the service, that's nonsense.
They "need" it to be able to use your material for purposes OTHER than operating the service.
You're confused. I don't know where you got the idea that monopolies are illegal. They certainly are not and have to my knowledge never been.
Certian -practices- are illegal IF you are a monopoly. But that's different.
Indeed, selling copyrigthed material is a monopoly by definition; a single entity, the one owning the copyright, is the ONLY one who can legally make copies of and sell the material.
You are right, there are rules and I was being sloppy. My apologies.
What I meant is that in general the rules don't seem to be very strict when it comes to energy-efficiency, not that the quality of the work done is in general any more (or any less) shoddy than elsewhere.
It's nice that energy-ratings are "on the rise", meanwhile elsewhere they've been compulsory for a decade. That's what I meant.
I also said that more stringent rules DO have a backside; there are obvious drawbacks to having the state mandate minimum standards. A more "nanny"-like state isn't in general desireable, even though in some cases it may be nessecary. The trick is to strike the right balance.
You're right. I was being imprecise. True. The US does have minimum building-standards. They are chiefly concerned with safety though.
It's just that they don't generally include very stringent demands when it comes to the building being energy-efficient.
For example, as far as I know there's no rule whatsoever on how airtight a new building must be, nor on heat-transfer trough windows or walls or heating-options.
(in contrast, if you build a new building intended as a permanent residence here, there are stringent rules for all of the above)
*grin* Yeah, part of it is that, offcourse.
I realize you're sorta joking, but I think there's a truth to it. Not that people LIKE poor construction, but that people LIKE being allowed to build poorly and cheaply, if they so choose. Having the state mandate minimum building-standards, as is the case in Scandinavia, feels a lot like a "nanny-state" to many. There's truth to that too -- there IS value in increased freedom, even if it's just freedom to build crappy houses.
Unfortunately, many people aren't even AWARE that they house they're buying is crappy, it's hard for someone who isn't knowledgeable to notice the difference. And it's not as if it's mandated to have new houses tested, or to INFORM the buyer of the energy-rating of the house.
That should IMHO be added. A new house is a significant investment, well worth the cost of an appraisal. If people then choose to buy the sucky house anyway, DESPITE knowing how sucky it is, I say let them.
The data is very thoroughly in. There's some uncertanity about the finer details, but the basic idea is as valid as it's going to get.
I don't get the US obsession with ANYTHING other than changing own behaviour. It's not as if you need to live poorly to significantly cut emissions. Sweden, for example, has a living-standard and GDP on the same level as USA, despite actually harsher climate, and their emissions are aproximately HALF of American levels pro capita.
Hell, some of the changes bring significant ADVANTAGES to standard of living. It's not as if it's a BENEFIT to live in a poorly insulated house where the wind blows trough, more or less. (okay okay, I'm exagerating, but it's a fact that the building-standards are substantially better in Sweden than in the US)
And it's not as if Sweden couldn't also be doing more with reasonable simple changes.
It's not infact hard to cut 2/3rds. That is likely to bring significant advantages over the current US-alternative which seems to be pretty close to "do nothing".
It's easy to fill 16GB by much more mundane means. For example taking photos with my 2-year-old digital camera produces 10MB every time I push the button. If it was a new or expensive one it'd produce more. 100 pictures is a gigabyte. 1600 pictures is 16GB.
But I need programs and an OS and other stuff too, probably atleast 5GB worth of other stuff, so I could store no more than 1000 pictures. I've got much more than 1000 pictures, hell I've got more than 1000 pictures from the last year.
16GB ain't that much. If you'd said 160GB, then ok.