In other words, Google is highly oversubscribed? They're an incredible company with some ingenious infrastructure, but there's no way they can push those levels of data. Or that the rest of the net could handle it.
However, I would absolutely love to be a P2P user in the KC area right now;)... I really missing having uncapped fiber at home, and I only had 100 mbps when I had it.
A few years ago, they said they wouldn't service my parents' address because it's not worth the price of laying more cable. They still haven't. So they were correct: they won't provide affordable service to large chunks of the community.
From what I've read elsewhere, profits are much lower on Android due to piracy. iOS has fairly low piracy rates, but Android is ridiculous. There might be more issues that impact Android developers (market fragmentation, different demographics, development costs, etc.) as well.
If I was an iOS developer considering a port to Android, I'd reconsider my prices as well.
I really don't know why this got modded insightful. You're right that manufacturing capacity is a factor in military strength, but it's far from being the only (or overriding) metric. First, I'll address the logical failures in your post, then I'll respond to the rest:
They are here one day and blow to bits the next...All of these high-tech weapons are nothing but a flash in the pan if they cannot be replaced at the pace at which they are consumed, or faster.
Just like thermite's nothing but a flash in the pan. But if you have enough thermite you can still melt the fucking pan. Weapons do *not* need to be replaced at the pace they are consumed. They need to be available in sufficient quantities for the duration of the conflict. Come January 2005, the USAF was running low on several types of munitions. Did that help Saddam? No.
Bleeding edge, billion dollar bombers are worthless if there's no fuel to get them into the air. (and other irrelevancies)
Who are you implying lacks sufficient quantities of bullets or jet fuel? Certainly not the US... few countries can match the United States' ability to supply itself with petroleum and related products. In a truly massive conflict, strategic reserves might be depleted and the US might be forced to drastically ration... but remember that the US has the ability to take down one of the world's most feared militaries without mobilizing significant additional assets.
Now tell me, who has the largest and most rapidly expanding manufacturing and logistics capability in the world? It sure as hell isn't the US. Take a random sample of the objects presently surrounding you and look at their "made in" label. Notice a theme? What oil field does your fuel come from? There are strong odds against it being Texas.
China is great at producing consumer goods, but their military production is still second rate. They have poor quality control, numerous production issues, and, to put it mildly, their designs lack ingenuity. If they can overcome all other challenges, they might become a global military power someday. At the moment, however, they're struggling to keep up. And not just in technology.
Their expanding manufacturing and logistics are impressive, but they don't currently have significant global force projection. They lack the logistics to deploy a 200k+ man military, forward deploy large numbers of bombers, fighters, transports, refuelers, etc. Their navy is largely brown water and would be unable to deliver their army. They don't have a global network of bases that can be used to project force, and are unlikely to be permitted one. They are catching up in satellites and anti-space, but they have a ways to go.
Economics: Militaries stop being competitive when their countries can no longer sustain sufficient funding. While the US will undoubtedly be forced to reduce military spending, intelligent cuts (and revenue increases) could allow it to maintain global force projection and dominance for decades with a balanced budget. China is facing much more severe economic challenges and faces a real possibility of collapse should it fail. China has not begun to pay the much higher costs associated with a global military. They have modernized some, but they don't appear able or willing to pay what they would need to to compete globally. They are, however, a regional concern... with many other strong regional powers already acting to counter them.
In short: China makes nice phones, but they can't wage a war on a different continent. The US still has enormous capacity and can easily fight multiple wars on multiple continents. Barring a US civil war, this is likely to continue for at least another two decades.
IM not-so-H O, the whole money in politics thing is a symptom of a larger problem. Politicians and lobbyists will always be looking for new ways to get money involved because money helps candidates win. If you want to fix the problem, you have to remove that incentive.
Broadcasters should be required to give candidates a certain (low) percentage of air time. Public financing of campaign ads is absurd. We grant broadcasters licenses to use our airwaves then pay them billions to run ads about our elections? No thanks. We could simply restrict political ads beyond set allocations. Issue ads for initiatives may be different, but I think we can fix most of the problem right here. Yard signs and bumper stickers are cheap, and volunteers aren't terribly expensive... so fixing the broadcasting should make public/party campaign financing affordable.
Many other electoral reforms need to occur, including a switch from single member plurality districts, restructuring the voter registration system(s), expanding voting options, making it easier (if not compulsory) to vote, etc.. but you get the idea. And ftr, other countries have adopted all of these systems with remarkable success. It's not a cure-all, but it would likely be an improvement for the US. Just some legal and political hurdles to overcome:).
Eh, I think I have enjoyed Genda's posts in the past, but AC is right here. There hasn't big a rift this wide between the two dominant American parties since the Civil War. Arguing that they are both the same because the parties still agree on a couple of issues? That really is moronic.
Here's a 30-second list of issues we can all agree the parties have significantly divergent policy approaches toward:
Gay rights
Immigration
Role of Federal govt vs. States' Rights (in various aspects)
Tax policy
Relative tax burdens
Social services (medicare, SS, medicaid, etc.)
The age of the earth
Evolution
Abortion / Womens' reproductive rights
But, y'know... leaders of both parties wear suits. So they're really all the same, right?
While I don't entirely disagree, it's unclear whether he represented himself as licensed/bonded and whether or not he actually is (haven't seen any commenters here check). I suspect there are many situations where, if only for liability purposes, a person will only want to hire licensed and bonded contractors. So this is something that can be mentioned in reviews either way.
That said, you're right. Licensing is no guarantee of competence or ethics. You should see the shit work, performance by a licensed electrician, I've been repairing lately... huge chandelier hanging from drywall toggles, Romex strewn loosely throughout an attic (in, under, on, and around insulation), etc. I'll be sure to include pictures if I write a review on Yelp >_>
Pure protectionism is likely to run into all sorts of issues with trade law, treaties, etc. and can lead to a lot of issues.
Instead, I would like to see "protectionism" based on humanitarian and environmental issues. It really levels the playing field (and incentivizes good treatment of workers) if you slap a tariff on any product manufactured/assembled* by workers earning poverty-level wages, working more than x hours/week under substandard conditions, etc. Environmental issues would likely have to be tackled on country-by-country compliance, but this could be done in a non-arbitrary, transparent, and predictable way.
Raising the selling prices of sweatshop goods will hurt the consumer a little bit, but this seems like a much better way to right the economy while still allowing industries to move with the market.
*Products with numerous subcomponents manufactured in different locations creates obvious challenges. As do some other issues, including fraud. However, these can be worked out... and enforcement and PR mechanisms can have very sharp teeth.
I appreciate a good lie as much as the next guy, but I would have just modded you "Troll" if I hadn't just posted. Since I had, a quick refutation of your opiate-induced rant:
What is the standard for a product to be called Made in USA without qualification?
For a product to be called Made in USA, or claimed to be of domestic origin without qualifications or limits on the claim, the product must be "all or virtually all" made in the U.S. The term "United States," as referred to in the Enforcement Policy Statement, includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories and possessions.
What does "all or virtually all" mean?
"All or virtually all" means that all significant parts and processing that go into the product must be of U.S. origin. That is, the product should contain no — or negligible — foreign content.
I'm a bit perplexed that you equate CNC machines with robots. In my experience, the use of "robot" never extended that far. Robots can be used to change parts in CNC machines, but operators do that just fine too. I have never heard anyone refer to the machines as "robots".
Sounds like they had a great advisor:). Now I might have to hit up google and see if anyone has done rigorous tests with precise equipment... I'm pretty curious how well the different vendors stack up. Overall, I'd agree that the name brands are overpriced. And I used to buy the Kirkland packs from Costco, too.
My main uses are in strobist photography, wireless keyboards and mice. My flashes can burn through 16 AAs on a busy/creative day, so switching to low self-discharge rechargeables has been an incredible investment. By my estimates, I've gotten 200-400 cycles from all of my Eneloops with no noticeable reduction in capacity. But I use a very slow charger and occasionally run them through a refresh cycle.
I can't compare their cold tolerance to alkaline or lithium, but if you have any devices that regularly burn through batteries rapidly I'd consider going the same route. Costco has the occasional sale on a "Super Pack" with charger, 12 AAs and 4 AAAs, and some C and D spacers for $30.
That is exactly what I want. The OEM car stereo needs to have a built in amp with a standard dock for all devices. Even better would be to add a larger screen, but definetly needs a dock that will not throw the phone in the air on a sudden stop. Unfortunately, if they implement something it will only be for the iphone like so many car companies have done with the adapter.
I bought a product very similar to what you're describing: the Sony DSXS100, whose fold-down faceplate reveals a tray. Inside, you'll find a USB connector with an iPhone adapter. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work with the iPhone... but a product like this, updated with bluetooth and perhaps double-DIN with navigation?
I don't actually want my phone in any plug-in dock in the car, though. I want it in something like a cup holder, with the ability to plug in a charger... but I want it to work like bluetooth. The car should be able to automatically connect, even if the phone is still in my pocket. Of course, I also want it to automatically read me any text messages I receive, and respond with "I'll respond later. I am driving right now" or some other canned responses...
$120 million over 5 years DOES seem like enough to do this. it's not like they need to hire hundreds of people or buy exorbitantly expensive equipment. figure the scientists are making $80-$100k. so let's say they hire 100 engineers at $100k each. that's $50 million over 5 years. is $70 million not enough to cover the costs of everything else? i think it could work, especially since the people who planned out this budget are way more knowledgeable than me about costs.
sheesh, skeptics. when i saw this headline i thought it was a good thing. i still do.
The sort of leading material scientists and engineers who would do this sort of research? I suspect they'll be making more than $100k/year. And some likely come with very expensive grad students:)
You're also forgetting that take-home pay isn't everything. Expect an employer to spend somewhere near double the take-home on every employee (medical, retirement, other benefits, their share of taxes and govt programs). So a more realistic figure might be $200k+ for the people who have any real chance of doing this...
Of course it looks like this will all be in the form of grants, and more of a supplement to existing budgets. Plenty of brilliant people already working at Argonne, various universities, corporations, etc. I support initiatives like this even if they're unlikely to succeed. We'll likely learn useful things.
In 2010 my grandkids in their school as a project asked 8 year olds to do a science project. One of the projects was compare the batteries on the market from brands such as Dollar store, Duracell, Ray-o-Vac, Panasonic, Sunbeam, and Energizer. All batteries were alkaline type. To perform the evaluation, they built some home made motors, using mail-order parts. A time clock started when the motors were started, and stopped when the motor armature stopped turning.
The dollar store batteries provided half the time of the others. The longest running batteries were Ray-o-Vac, followed by Panasonic, which retailed about half the cost of the cost of the Durocell and Energizer.
You have never seen a battery manufacturer compare his product against the competition, but these kids convinced me to not believe the TV commercials.
On one hand, that's an awesome project for 8 year olds. I'd be proud! On the other... IANABE (battery engineer?), but from what I believe I understand, that's just one type of load. I am assuming this was a relatively rapid discharge of the batteries, using the exact same motor for the compared batteries, under the same conditions (air conditioned room held at constant temperature, batteries kept at same temps for 12 hours, etc.)? Even if they held all those constant (and battery temperatures have huge impact), further testing may have shown that the "best" batteries were miserable in other tests.
For example, impurities or casing issues or whatever may cause the Ray-o-Vacs to have reduced shelf life (or lower mAh output after, say, 5 years storage). The batteries could perform differently under constant, low loads (e.g. digital clock) or in remote controls. Performance could also be different for strobe type applications (sporadic rapid discharge, sometimes in burst)... or the batteries could handle temperatures differently.
In short, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from that test. But I'm a bit biased... I use Eneloops for nearly everything these days:) don't even buy alkalines.
Any of those things would be preferable to continuing the illusion of democracy when we have none. We survived GWB and we would have survived Romney as well. There is much, much more to gain by breaking the one party system we have today than there is to lose.
For the record, it is far too early to count the cards from GWB. GWB left us with trillions in unfunded liabilities in the form of wars, VA benefits, Medicare Part D, and tax cuts. He also left us highly polarized and unprepared to deal with climate change, extremely high inequality, and a failing economy. We have absolutely no idea how we will solve these problems, or if we will be able to.
The only thing we should expect from the next generation is the writing of history books. And I suspect the Bush chapter will be quite a challenge.
I remember back in the day, Netscape ruled the web, and internet explorer was a piece of crap that, while bundled with the operating system, nobody ever used. I remember when Microsoft first released mplayer, its first video player; Which looked sad and pathetic next to QuickTime. I remember how under Windows NT, the only method of defragmenting the filesystem was to reformat and start over, unless you bought Norton. I remember when Word Perfect was the only word processor anyone in the industry would recommend for professionals, and Microsoft Office was little more than notepad with a bag on the side. And I remember the first software firewalls by ZoneAlarm and others, compared to the pathetic XP firewall.
While I hope you are right...
I remember back in the day, Apache ruled the web and everyone laughed at IIS. Embedded systems didn't use Windows because MS products were pitiful in this market. Everyone had an iPod and laughed at those who used Zunes. Microsoft used to pump enormous sums into R&D for search and mobile devices, but it never seemed to get anywhere with marketshare. That sure changed! Hell, I even remember when every other Microsoft Windows release was a laughing stock. People used to make jokes about it.
Microsoft has been wildly successful with relatively low levels of evil, and that should be applauded... but let's not give them too much credit. For starters, many of their products fail and will fail. That's business. But my real gripe: their terrible products largely created the current security market. On many setups, you could effectively root Windows 95 by hitting "escape" at the login screen. Even MS's own products didn't start separating user data from program files until the mid-2000s. Their file system, permissions, and registry have created incredible opportunities for malware. MS(S)E is the equivalent of BP watching a 15 year long oil leak and showing up with some bags of Quickrete. If they finally manage to cap the well 5-10 years after showing up, and end up tanking the anti-virus industry? They'll have finally begun to earn their position as the dominant Operating System. I do love Office, though, at least compared to the competition.
Replacing dollar bills with dollar coins doesn't change transaction prices, just the tokens used for the transaction. Junking the penny does change prices.
I'm not convinced of this. MIlitary stationed overseas frequently find themselves penny-less... base exchanges, stores, restaurants, etc. just don't find pennies worth carrying. Instead, prices are rounded up or down to the nearest $0.05. I spent a lot of time overseas, and I never heard anyone complain that they missed pennies. Personally, I'm ready to eliminate pennies, nickels, and dimes... going straight to the quarter. A nickel doesn't even buy more than a couple minutes at a parking meter these days.
Currently, nearly every jurisdiction has a sales tax. Tax calculations inevitably produce transactions at the sub-penny level: 7.25% sales tax means a $1 purchase requires 7 + 1/4 pennies. We obviously don't have sub-penny units, so we just round down to 7 pennies. Other transactions round up, I'm sure. In the end, someone could game the system by using advanced models to ensure more purchase combinations result in rounding up, but really... at a penny per transaction? I doubt many businesses would risk the bad publicity... and even if they did, it's probably a lot cheaper for consumers than paying for all that change to be lugged around, counted, and transacted.
In short: This week, I spent several minutes in a grocery store checkout... behind an old woman counting change and looking in her purse for more.
Honest question... are you color blind? The gold vs. silver contrast is glaring to me... I think the dollar coin is the easiest to pick out from a stack.
I assume you are referring to the sacagawea dollar? From "$1.25 snack", it's unlike to be the Susan B. Anthony, and I don't think the silver eagle is in general circulation.
In the UK, the "government" refers to the majority party in power. So at the moment the government is made up of a Tory/LibDem coalition, there is a Tory prime minister, and so on. You wouldn't say that Labour MPs are part of the government. Organisations like the police or military or social services are part of the state, but not really controlled by the government in any direct way.
Maybe the usage is different in the US.
No, it's the same. People just get really confused because the US has states in addition to "the state", and the Head of State is also the Head of Government. In my experience, the average educated professional has no clue on the distinction.
But then we do have the, what are they called? Sovereign individuals? They're the whackjobs who think all government above the county level is illegitimate, and they tend to be closely aligned with libertarians. To them, everything and everyone is "the government"... and that's a bad, scary thing. They also tend to be very concerned that the UN, as part of a zionist New World Order conspiracy, has an army that is planning to invade the US and steal all their guns in the near future. Also, something about Sharia Law and Communism.
Yeah, I had a decent time in Texas, too. It was nice to be called "Slim" by people who actually meant it:). But if I mentioned my views on politics or religion, or told people I was from CA, I got a different version of southern hospitality. I suspect it would have been a very different experience if I was homosexual or dark-skinned.
I actually remember you telling the cowboy story in a previous post, maybe a year or two ago. It's hard to forget events like that...
Absolutely. If you haven't already, you should check out Sadow's liquid metal batteries. Development appears to be coming along nicely. They are designed for cheap grid-level storage.
So you think UPS would come to Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, everywhere else... and pick up our letters for pennies? And then reliably deliver them to their recipients? Or that we should have multiple, competing carriers doing this?
"Mail call! Oh, I know your girlfriend just died, Jimmy, but this is UPS mail call. Your family uses FedEx, right? Maybe next week"
I don't know how they do it legally, but ShipItAPO does package and mail forwarding to APO addresses. I don't see how FedEx or UPS couldn't do the same thing. Hell, when it comes to private enterprise supporting our troops, I'd be happy with all web forms accepting APO/FPO addresses without erroring out.
Since you focused on just this one point, I'm going to assume that you agree with all my others.
...when the end comes, congress should let the post office sink... Private industry can and will step in.
As someone who has lived in rural areas and served overseas, let me be the first to say: Fuck that shit.
Does UPS or FedEx deliver letters from loved ones to APO/FPO addresses? No. Would the private sector guarantee that every single person, even the poor, had regular mail pickup and delivery? No. Will private companies find a way to rip us off? Absolutely.
There's a certain group of people who like to wave the flag, brag about conservatism and strict adherence to the constitution. Why are they the same ones trying to kill off a vital function explicitly tasked to the federal government by our founding fathers?
Few things are more important to a society than access to communications. If we're so strapped for cash that we want to sell the USPS to the highest bidder, let's end subsidies to oil companies and give that money to the USPS instead.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, Google is highly oversubscribed? They're an incredible company with some ingenious infrastructure, but there's no way they can push those levels of data. Or that the rest of the net could handle it.
However, I would absolutely love to be a P2P user in the KC area right now ;)... I really missing having uncapped fiber at home, and I only had 100 mbps when I had it.
A few years ago, they said they wouldn't service my parents' address because it's not worth the price of laying more cable. They still haven't. So they were correct: they won't provide affordable service to large chunks of the community.
But if you go by households you're going to have to pay at least $1,000 each.
... or less than the price of one year's cable and phone service.
developers get 70% on Android too.
From what I've read elsewhere, profits are much lower on Android due to piracy. iOS has fairly low piracy rates, but Android is ridiculous. There might be more issues that impact Android developers (market fragmentation, different demographics, development costs, etc.) as well.
If I was an iOS developer considering a port to Android, I'd reconsider my prices as well.
I really don't know why this got modded insightful. You're right that manufacturing capacity is a factor in military strength, but it's far from being the only (or overriding) metric. First, I'll address the logical failures in your post, then I'll respond to the rest:
They are here one day and blow to bits the next...All of these high-tech weapons are nothing but a flash in the pan if they cannot be replaced at the pace at which they are consumed, or faster.
Just like thermite's nothing but a flash in the pan. But if you have enough thermite you can still melt the fucking pan. Weapons do *not* need to be replaced at the pace they are consumed. They need to be available in sufficient quantities for the duration of the conflict. Come January 2005, the USAF was running low on several types of munitions. Did that help Saddam? No.
Bleeding edge, billion dollar bombers are worthless if there's no fuel to get them into the air. (and other irrelevancies)
Who are you implying lacks sufficient quantities of bullets or jet fuel? Certainly not the US... few countries can match the United States' ability to supply itself with petroleum and related products. In a truly massive conflict, strategic reserves might be depleted and the US might be forced to drastically ration... but remember that the US has the ability to take down one of the world's most feared militaries without mobilizing significant additional assets.
Now tell me, who has the largest and most rapidly expanding manufacturing and logistics capability in the world? It sure as hell isn't the US. Take a random sample of the objects presently surrounding you and look at their "made in" label. Notice a theme? What oil field does your fuel come from? There are strong odds against it being Texas.
China is great at producing consumer goods, but their military production is still second rate. They have poor quality control, numerous production issues, and, to put it mildly, their designs lack ingenuity. If they can overcome all other challenges, they might become a global military power someday. At the moment, however, they're struggling to keep up. And not just in technology.
Their expanding manufacturing and logistics are impressive, but they don't currently have significant global force projection. They lack the logistics to deploy a 200k+ man military, forward deploy large numbers of bombers, fighters, transports, refuelers, etc. Their navy is largely brown water and would be unable to deliver their army. They don't have a global network of bases that can be used to project force, and are unlikely to be permitted one. They are catching up in satellites and anti-space, but they have a ways to go.
Economics: Militaries stop being competitive when their countries can no longer sustain sufficient funding. While the US will undoubtedly be forced to reduce military spending, intelligent cuts (and revenue increases) could allow it to maintain global force projection and dominance for decades with a balanced budget. China is facing much more severe economic challenges and faces a real possibility of collapse should it fail. China has not begun to pay the much higher costs associated with a global military. They have modernized some, but they don't appear able or willing to pay what they would need to to compete globally. They are, however, a regional concern... with many other strong regional powers already acting to counter them.
In short: China makes nice phones, but they can't wage a war on a different continent. The US still has enormous capacity and can easily fight multiple wars on multiple continents. Barring a US civil war, this is likely to continue for at least another two decades.
Fair enough, but I think Slashdot's broken handling of unordered lists really devalued my comment :(. "Big" instead of "been" was all me, though.
IM not-so-H O, the whole money in politics thing is a symptom of a larger problem. Politicians and lobbyists will always be looking for new ways to get money involved because money helps candidates win. If you want to fix the problem, you have to remove that incentive.
Broadcasters should be required to give candidates a certain (low) percentage of air time. Public financing of campaign ads is absurd. We grant broadcasters licenses to use our airwaves then pay them billions to run ads about our elections? No thanks. We could simply restrict political ads beyond set allocations. Issue ads for initiatives may be different, but I think we can fix most of the problem right here. Yard signs and bumper stickers are cheap, and volunteers aren't terribly expensive... so fixing the broadcasting should make public/party campaign financing affordable.
Many other electoral reforms need to occur, including a switch from single member plurality districts, restructuring the voter registration system(s), expanding voting options, making it easier (if not compulsory) to vote, etc.. but you get the idea. And ftr, other countries have adopted all of these systems with remarkable success. It's not a cure-all, but it would likely be an improvement for the US. Just some legal and political hurdles to overcome :).
Eh, I think I have enjoyed Genda's posts in the past, but AC is right here. There hasn't big a rift this wide between the two dominant American parties since the Civil War. Arguing that they are both the same because the parties still agree on a couple of issues? That really is moronic.
Here's a 30-second list of issues we can all agree the parties have significantly divergent policy approaches toward:
But, y'know... leaders of both parties wear suits. So they're really all the same, right?
While I don't entirely disagree, it's unclear whether he represented himself as licensed/bonded and whether or not he actually is (haven't seen any commenters here check). I suspect there are many situations where, if only for liability purposes, a person will only want to hire licensed and bonded contractors. So this is something that can be mentioned in reviews either way.
That said, you're right. Licensing is no guarantee of competence or ethics. You should see the shit work, performance by a licensed electrician, I've been repairing lately... huge chandelier hanging from drywall toggles, Romex strewn loosely throughout an attic (in, under, on, and around insulation), etc. I'll be sure to include pictures if I write a review on Yelp >_>
Pure protectionism is likely to run into all sorts of issues with trade law, treaties, etc. and can lead to a lot of issues.
Instead, I would like to see "protectionism" based on humanitarian and environmental issues. It really levels the playing field (and incentivizes good treatment of workers) if you slap a tariff on any product manufactured/assembled* by workers earning poverty-level wages, working more than x hours/week under substandard conditions, etc. Environmental issues would likely have to be tackled on country-by-country compliance, but this could be done in a non-arbitrary, transparent, and predictable way.
Raising the selling prices of sweatshop goods will hurt the consumer a little bit, but this seems like a much better way to right the economy while still allowing industries to move with the market.
*Products with numerous subcomponents manufactured in different locations creates obvious challenges. As do some other issues, including fraud. However, these can be worked out... and enforcement and PR mechanisms can have very sharp teeth.
I appreciate a good lie as much as the next guy, but I would have just modded you "Troll" if I hadn't just posted. Since I had, a quick refutation of your opiate-induced rant:
FTC Complying with Made in USA:
What is the standard for a product to be called Made in USA without qualification?
For a product to be called Made in USA, or claimed to be of domestic origin without qualifications or limits on the claim, the product must be "all or virtually all" made in the U.S. The term "United States," as referred to in the Enforcement Policy Statement, includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories and possessions.
What does "all or virtually all" mean?
"All or virtually all" means that all significant parts and processing that go into the product must be of U.S. origin. That is, the product should contain no — or negligible — foreign content.
I'm a bit perplexed that you equate CNC machines with robots. In my experience, the use of "robot" never extended that far. Robots can be used to change parts in CNC machines, but operators do that just fine too. I have never heard anyone refer to the machines as "robots".
Sounds like they had a great advisor :). Now I might have to hit up google and see if anyone has done rigorous tests with precise equipment... I'm pretty curious how well the different vendors stack up. Overall, I'd agree that the name brands are overpriced. And I used to buy the Kirkland packs from Costco, too.
My main uses are in strobist photography, wireless keyboards and mice. My flashes can burn through 16 AAs on a busy/creative day, so switching to low self-discharge rechargeables has been an incredible investment. By my estimates, I've gotten 200-400 cycles from all of my Eneloops with no noticeable reduction in capacity. But I use a very slow charger and occasionally run them through a refresh cycle.
I can't compare their cold tolerance to alkaline or lithium, but if you have any devices that regularly burn through batteries rapidly I'd consider going the same route. Costco has the occasional sale on a "Super Pack" with charger, 12 AAs and 4 AAAs, and some C and D spacers for $30.
That is exactly what I want. The OEM car stereo needs to have a built in amp with a standard dock for all devices. Even better would be to add a larger screen, but definetly needs a dock that will not throw the phone in the air on a sudden stop.
Unfortunately, if they implement something it will only be for the iphone like so many car companies have done with the adapter.
I bought a product very similar to what you're describing: the Sony DSXS100, whose fold-down faceplate reveals a tray. Inside, you'll find a USB connector with an iPhone adapter. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work with the iPhone... but a product like this, updated with bluetooth and perhaps double-DIN with navigation?
I don't actually want my phone in any plug-in dock in the car, though. I want it in something like a cup holder, with the ability to plug in a charger... but I want it to work like bluetooth. The car should be able to automatically connect, even if the phone is still in my pocket. Of course, I also want it to automatically read me any text messages I receive, and respond with "I'll respond later. I am driving right now" or some other canned responses...
$120 million over 5 years DOES seem like enough to do this. it's not like they need to hire hundreds of people or buy exorbitantly expensive equipment. figure the scientists are making $80-$100k. so let's say they hire 100 engineers at $100k each. that's $50 million over 5 years. is $70 million not enough to cover the costs of everything else? i think it could work, especially since the people who planned out this budget are way more knowledgeable than me about costs.
sheesh, skeptics. when i saw this headline i thought it was a good thing. i still do.
The sort of leading material scientists and engineers who would do this sort of research? I suspect they'll be making more than $100k/year. And some likely come with very expensive grad students :)
You're also forgetting that take-home pay isn't everything. Expect an employer to spend somewhere near double the take-home on every employee (medical, retirement, other benefits, their share of taxes and govt programs). So a more realistic figure might be $200k+ for the people who have any real chance of doing this...
Of course it looks like this will all be in the form of grants, and more of a supplement to existing budgets. Plenty of brilliant people already working at Argonne, various universities, corporations, etc. I support initiatives like this even if they're unlikely to succeed. We'll likely learn useful things.
In 2010 my grandkids in their school as a project asked 8 year olds to do a science project. One of the projects was compare the batteries on the market from brands such as Dollar store, Duracell, Ray-o-Vac, Panasonic, Sunbeam, and Energizer. All batteries were alkaline type.
To perform the evaluation, they built some home made motors, using mail-order parts. A time clock started when the motors were started, and stopped when the motor armature stopped turning.
The dollar store batteries provided half the time of the others. The longest running batteries were Ray-o-Vac, followed by Panasonic, which retailed about half the cost of the cost of the Durocell and Energizer.
You have never seen a battery manufacturer compare his product against the competition, but these kids convinced me to not believe the TV commercials.
On one hand, that's an awesome project for 8 year olds. I'd be proud! On the other... IANABE (battery engineer?), but from what I believe I understand, that's just one type of load. I am assuming this was a relatively rapid discharge of the batteries, using the exact same motor for the compared batteries, under the same conditions (air conditioned room held at constant temperature, batteries kept at same temps for 12 hours, etc.)? Even if they held all those constant (and battery temperatures have huge impact), further testing may have shown that the "best" batteries were miserable in other tests.
For example, impurities or casing issues or whatever may cause the Ray-o-Vacs to have reduced shelf life (or lower mAh output after, say, 5 years storage). The batteries could perform differently under constant, low loads (e.g. digital clock) or in remote controls. Performance could also be different for strobe type applications (sporadic rapid discharge, sometimes in burst)... or the batteries could handle temperatures differently.
In short, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from that test. But I'm a bit biased... I use Eneloops for nearly everything these days :) don't even buy alkalines.
Any of those things would be preferable to continuing the illusion of democracy when we have none. We survived GWB and we would have survived Romney as well. There is much, much more to gain by breaking the one party system we have today than there is to lose.
For the record, it is far too early to count the cards from GWB. GWB left us with trillions in unfunded liabilities in the form of wars, VA benefits, Medicare Part D, and tax cuts. He also left us highly polarized and unprepared to deal with climate change, extremely high inequality, and a failing economy. We have absolutely no idea how we will solve these problems, or if we will be able to.
The only thing we should expect from the next generation is the writing of history books. And I suspect the Bush chapter will be quite a challenge.
I remember back in the day, Netscape ruled the web, and internet explorer was a piece of crap that, while bundled with the operating system, nobody ever used. I remember when Microsoft first released mplayer, its first video player; Which looked sad and pathetic next to QuickTime. I remember how under Windows NT, the only method of defragmenting the filesystem was to reformat and start over, unless you bought Norton. I remember when Word Perfect was the only word processor anyone in the industry would recommend for professionals, and Microsoft Office was little more than notepad with a bag on the side. And I remember the first software firewalls by ZoneAlarm and others, compared to the pathetic XP firewall.
While I hope you are right...
I remember back in the day, Apache ruled the web and everyone laughed at IIS. Embedded systems didn't use Windows because MS products were pitiful in this market. Everyone had an iPod and laughed at those who used Zunes. Microsoft used to pump enormous sums into R&D for search and mobile devices, but it never seemed to get anywhere with marketshare. That sure changed! Hell, I even remember when every other Microsoft Windows release was a laughing stock. People used to make jokes about it.
Microsoft has been wildly successful with relatively low levels of evil, and that should be applauded... but let's not give them too much credit. For starters, many of their products fail and will fail. That's business. But my real gripe: their terrible products largely created the current security market. On many setups, you could effectively root Windows 95 by hitting "escape" at the login screen. Even MS's own products didn't start separating user data from program files until the mid-2000s. Their file system, permissions, and registry have created incredible opportunities for malware. MS(S)E is the equivalent of BP watching a 15 year long oil leak and showing up with some bags of Quickrete. If they finally manage to cap the well 5-10 years after showing up, and end up tanking the anti-virus industry? They'll have finally begun to earn their position as the dominant Operating System. I do love Office, though, at least compared to the competition.
Replacing dollar bills with dollar coins doesn't change transaction prices, just the tokens used for the transaction. Junking the penny does change prices.
I'm not convinced of this. MIlitary stationed overseas frequently find themselves penny-less... base exchanges, stores, restaurants, etc. just don't find pennies worth carrying. Instead, prices are rounded up or down to the nearest $0.05. I spent a lot of time overseas, and I never heard anyone complain that they missed pennies. Personally, I'm ready to eliminate pennies, nickels, and dimes... going straight to the quarter. A nickel doesn't even buy more than a couple minutes at a parking meter these days.
Currently, nearly every jurisdiction has a sales tax. Tax calculations inevitably produce transactions at the sub-penny level: 7.25% sales tax means a $1 purchase requires 7 + 1/4 pennies. We obviously don't have sub-penny units, so we just round down to 7 pennies. Other transactions round up, I'm sure. In the end, someone could game the system by using advanced models to ensure more purchase combinations result in rounding up, but really... at a penny per transaction? I doubt many businesses would risk the bad publicity... and even if they did, it's probably a lot cheaper for consumers than paying for all that change to be lugged around, counted, and transacted.
In short: This week, I spent several minutes in a grocery store checkout... behind an old woman counting change and looking in her purse for more.
Honest question... are you color blind? The gold vs. silver contrast is glaring to me... I think the dollar coin is the easiest to pick out from a stack.
I assume you are referring to the sacagawea dollar? From "$1.25 snack", it's unlike to be the Susan B. Anthony, and I don't think the silver eagle is in general circulation.
In the UK, the "government" refers to the majority party in power. So at the moment the government is made up of a Tory/LibDem coalition, there is a Tory prime minister, and so on. You wouldn't say that Labour MPs are part of the government. Organisations like the police or military or social services are part of the state, but not really controlled by the government in any direct way.
Maybe the usage is different in the US.
No, it's the same. People just get really confused because the US has states in addition to "the state", and the Head of State is also the Head of Government. In my experience, the average educated professional has no clue on the distinction.
But then we do have the, what are they called? Sovereign individuals? They're the whackjobs who think all government above the county level is illegitimate, and they tend to be closely aligned with libertarians. To them, everything and everyone is "the government"... and that's a bad, scary thing. They also tend to be very concerned that the UN, as part of a zionist New World Order conspiracy, has an army that is planning to invade the US and steal all their guns in the near future. Also, something about Sharia Law and Communism.
Yeah, I had a decent time in Texas, too. It was nice to be called "Slim" by people who actually meant it :). But if I mentioned my views on politics or religion, or told people I was from CA, I got a different version of southern hospitality. I suspect it would have been a very different experience if I was homosexual or dark-skinned.
I actually remember you telling the cowboy story in a previous post, maybe a year or two ago. It's hard to forget events like that...
Absolutely. If you haven't already, you should check out Sadow's liquid metal batteries. Development appears to be coming along nicely. They are designed for cheap grid-level storage.
So you think UPS would come to Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, everywhere else... and pick up our letters for pennies? And then reliably deliver them to their recipients? Or that we should have multiple, competing carriers doing this?
"Mail call! Oh, I know your girlfriend just died, Jimmy, but this is UPS mail call. Your family uses FedEx, right? Maybe next week"
I don't know how they do it legally, but ShipItAPO does package and mail forwarding to APO addresses. I don't see how FedEx or UPS couldn't do the same thing. Hell, when it comes to private enterprise supporting our troops, I'd be happy with all web forms accepting APO/FPO addresses without erroring out.
Since you focused on just this one point, I'm going to assume that you agree with all my others.
...when the end comes, congress should let the post office sink... Private industry can and will step in.
As someone who has lived in rural areas and served overseas, let me be the first to say: Fuck that shit.
Does UPS or FedEx deliver letters from loved ones to APO/FPO addresses? No.
Would the private sector guarantee that every single person, even the poor, had regular mail pickup and delivery? No.
Will private companies find a way to rip us off? Absolutely.
There's a certain group of people who like to wave the flag, brag about conservatism and strict adherence to the constitution. Why are they the same ones trying to kill off a vital function explicitly tasked to the federal government by our founding fathers?
Few things are more important to a society than access to communications. If we're so strapped for cash that we want to sell the USPS to the highest bidder, let's end subsidies to oil companies and give that money to the USPS instead.