Only for the unencrypted channels. There is no such thing as a 5C compliant firewire card for a PC. So in most markets you can only record "free" TV over firewire. No ESPN/HBO/etc.
The superluminal quasar jets are just optical illusions, as your link points out. Their apparent speed is superluminal, but their measured speed is subluminal. This article talks about the fastest measured speed of matter we have ever encountered.
First of all, I'm not your corporatist straw man, I consider the corporation to be an evil far surpassing unionized labor. But just because you're the enemy of my enemy, don't expect a Christmas card. As someone else pointed out on this thread, there are far better ways to organize labor than unions, such as co-ops.
Raised prices to better match social costs, right. As one would expect of a free market: one which takes account of all costs, rather than externalizing them.
It doesn't matter what you think the prices "should" be. They are what they are and the market reacts accordingly. "Externalizing costs" is that reaction, it is a free market in action.
I have no idea what your point is with health care, that system has massive problems that are not caused by market forces. The only place I see market forces in play right now is with HMOs, and consequently they're driving hard for preventative medicine and healthy lifestyles to lower their costs.
See, there you buy into something that's provably false. If it were a free market, you would have the government enforcing labor laws..
Granted, if we had a world government that would enforce uniform labor laws and wage structures, that would satisfy free market conditions. We don't. I'm not saying it's right, but the disparity in benefits between unions, non-unions, and offshore workers is a real market force. The tax codes on non-resident US corporations is pretty crooked as well and certainly contributes mightily to off shoring, but it doesn't fully account for it, and doesn't do anything to explain non-union shops taking away union business.
[Corporations lobby too, 80 years ago there was violence against unions]
True, but irrelevant. None of that makes $1 difference to the negative effect unions have had on our economy.
Perhaps unions had their place at one time to check the new power of the corporation, but that time has long since passed. It's a much more global economy now, Americans had better stop whining about the good old days and make some product before the world takes away the vast piles of money they have stored up. Or not. Perhaps it's time to give another country the chance to be the world leader in GDP.
You're pretty close I'd say, but then miss your own point.
Unions are a victim of their own success. They got better contracts and better benefits, which raised the price of the goods and services produced by union shops. Laws of the free market then shifted business away from union shops to offshore and non-union shops. Unions then resorted to some questionable tactics to "fight to keep what they have" from heavy lobbying and lawmaking to outright extortion and violence.
This fight has cost our country, and has negatively affected *your* wages as well as mine. This is not information from Faux News, just google economists and unions. E.g. , economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio University calculated that labor unions have cost the American economy $50 trillion over the past 50 years alone and it also found that wages in general suffered dramatically as a result of an economy that is 30 to 40 percent smaller than it would have been in the absence of labor unionism.
Sorry, I know it's good for you and your family right now, but you can't mess with the free market without consequences down the road.
Gratzel Cells have been around for quite some time. The trick is to get any kind of efficiency out of them. Wake me when I can buy one, I'm getting sick of seeing solar cell venture capitalist hype every two weeks.
But yes, even 9% is better than curent gas storage, which is much less than 5% hydrogen by weight. The DOE target for 2010 is 6%. And even then you'd be about five times the volume using compressed gas for a given amout of hydrogen.
OK, you seem like a reasonable person, so I'll try to sell it.
So let's get the facts out of the way: Instead of quoting lots of sources, all of which would of couse be suspect to one degree or another due to funding, politics, etc. Just have a look at http://www.ipcc.ch/ That's about the strongest scientific consensus you're ever going to see. About anything. You probably couldn't get as many scientists to agree about the gravitational constant.
Now to consequences. Yes, the world won't end. It's just going to get more unpleasant, and more expensive. Have a look at the report. Look at the rainfall predictions. Those poorer countries you see with lower rainfall are going to have more drought and people in those specific areas will die without massive aid. How's that aid thing been working out for the drought regions in Africa lately? Yes, yes, if the goverments there could all just get along, etc....
Can anyone say exactly when and which exact areas will be affected? No. Can anyone say exaclty which people will die if we legalize drunk driving? No. But neither is a good argument. The scientific fact, with as much scientific certainty as say... evolution *gasp*.... is that it will happen.
You have focused on ocean levels, but that's really a minor point compared to other affects, such as the threat to the North Atlactic current, but let's have a look. For your strawman of 10cm, I think what you've said is fairly accurate. But that's the low end of the IPCCs estimates for the next 100 years, with 88cm being the high, and no end in sight until we do something, and even then we won't see the levels stabilize for centuries after temperatures do. What do *you* think will happen with a 1m rise in the highest of the high tides? I'd say, for example, about 10% of Manhattan will flood 5-10 times a century unless massive dikes are built. There's 50 billion dollars down the drain on a tiny example.
And that's really the point. What do we (in the US) have to gain by ignoring the problem? A hundred billion per year or so in GDP on the high side: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/cost.html What do we stand to lose? That's a tougher number to estimate. Honestly, in the near term, say under 100 years, we won't approach that 100 billion number in the US. Other, more equatorial countries will, but we won't. In the longer run, though, it will catch up with us, and by then we will have wiped out thousands of species and hundreds of entire ecosystems. All of this is in the IPCC report. Have a look.
Early adopters to industry: "We are not regular consumers with more money. We want to hook up your new technology to our blender, toaster, and the Internet simultaneously just to see if we can. If you take that away, good luck selling your first gen. product to Joe Sixpack at WalMart."
I'd like to see your last two sentences on a banner at a trade show.
OK, we can't really explain the whole entaglement thing without using big words and wave equations, but here's a very close analogy:
Say you have two balls, one red, and one blue. You blindly put them into two identical boxes, and ship one to Pluto. After that's done, you open the box here on Earth and see that it's red. You instantly know the color of the ball on Pluto is blue. What good does that do you? Nothing.
The quantum entaglement is almost the same, except that the balls don't finalize their color until you look at one. But the information is just as useless.
The question of This + Quantum Entaglement is also flawed, you can't have both. If you set the spin of one, you've destroyed the entaglement.
Re:Where are the innovations ?
on
Prey Review
·
· Score: 1
I find playing single player is a little like getting out the playboy magazines and locking yourself in your room in favour of meeting up with your girlfriend
Yes, but I find multi-player games to be playing video games in favor of meeting up with your girlfriend.
Single-player games are easier to fit into cracks in the schedule. They also fill a need for introversion. If I feel like playing multi-player, I go outside and play non-virtual. True, that may change as the body ages and becomes less able to get fragged for real. Let's just hope that the industry doesn't neglect multi in favor of single or vice versa. They both have their merits.
OK, so Symantec makes money selling products that patch up problems with Windows OSes. Microsoft trying to put them out of a job. I'm not saying Vista is really achieving this goal, but what sort of report did you expect from Symantec? "Wow, this Vista really makes our products unnecssary"!
FUD. At least they learned Microsoft's greatest marketing strategy.
It's funny how I get a hopeful feeling when I see that there may still be some credible debate on this topic. Sadly the truth really is inconvenient, and depressing.
Zero of those traffic deaths have been scientificly proven to be caused by pot. There are very few studies available, but those that have been done (here's one link) seem to show that the paranoia more than offsets the loss of attention and motor coordiantion. The US NHTSA and DOT came to similar conclusions. Of course if it were legal, it would stand to reason that there would be less paranoia of getting pulled over and this effect would reduce. In case you're curious, the DOT figures for drivers in injury accidents testing positive for pot without alchohol was 2%, no control figure was given, but I'd wager the figure for drivers on pot is a little above 2%.
Disclaimer: don't use it, just irked that I'm forced to use inferior drugs like alchohol.
This is nonsense. Micron could achieve the same objective by simply lowering their prices.
Probably. That's what game theory would predict. And that's what they should have done, it would have been legal.
Micron informing its competitors of the reason for the price cut is merely a courtesy.
Nope. It's a very important and damning point. That direct information sharing is the definition of overt collusion, and it's illegal. They should have been smarter and just hinted at it in a press release or stock analyst meeting.
The fact that they *could* have easily done the same thing legally does not make their actions legal, it just makes them stupid.
I'm quite sure you're right, and just a little more explanation for those who don't already know: The energy required to produce a traditional silicon based solar cell is about equal to 8 years of constant daytime operation of that cell. Not coincidentally, if you put them up to power your house, it takes about 8-10 years to save enough money on your power bill to pay for the cells.
Thin film cells promise to reduce this to less than 2 years, but they're not yet here in significant production.
"And if you don't send it we'll still spend it, faster than ever" - G.W. Bush 2002-present.
Since when has (federal) government spending been correlated to government income? You can't curtail spending by limiting income. You can only curtail spending by curtailing spending.
BS. I worked my way through college and only my party schedule interfered with studying. And transcribing your own notes is a *very* good method of study. Even just paraphrasing textbooks into notes is a good way to remember stuff. It makes you process the information instead of just glazing over and thinking about something else.
Good advice from the prof. If you don't have time to do even that much studying, time to make a life choice.
One person's lies are another person's truth. Who decides?
I'm always suspicious of people that want to put limits on the flow of ideas, e.g. speech. If an idea is abhorrent or rings false to most people, they will speak and act against the speaker. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of one's speech. There is no need for a society to stop any form of pure speech before it starts.
Yes. Without question. (To the public posting without notification part, the "sent beyond your computer" part is pretty stupid).
You claim to not be partisan, but this sounds a lot like the "but the Democrats/Clinton did it!" argument. Each party and individual should be judged by their actions alone.
FYI, if you bough these with a credit card you can reverse the changes on the unused portion. The credit card company holds on to a chunk of money long after a company goes under for cases like this.
Suckage indeed. Interstate 82 ranks down there with the movies Alien 3 and Highlander 2 as sequels that not only sucked, but managed to crap all over their fine predecessor in the process.
I agree with the grandparent, and disagree with you.
There's no governing body of scientific terms, but I've seen many proposed laws with no prior history of being called a theory. In my physics experience, laws are almost always a mathematical model of observed behavior with no attempt to explain the underlying reasons or mechanics of said behavior.
Laws are theories as they fit all the definitions of a theory, but they don't become laws by extra proof, rather by their initial limited nature. For example, there is a law of gravity ( F = G Ma Mb / r^2 ) and there are separately various theories of gravity such as general relativity.
Slashdot Mirror
Only for the unencrypted channels. There is no such thing as a 5C compliant firewire card for a PC. So in most markets you can only record "free" TV over firewire. No ESPN/HBO/etc.
The superluminal quasar jets are just optical illusions, as your link points out. Their apparent speed is superluminal, but their measured speed is subluminal. This article talks about the fastest measured speed of matter we have ever encountered.
First of all, I'm not your corporatist straw man, I consider the corporation to be an evil far surpassing unionized labor. But just because you're the enemy of my enemy, don't expect a Christmas card. As someone else pointed out on this thread, there are far better ways to organize labor than unions, such as co-ops.
Raised prices to better match social costs, right. As one would expect of a free market: one which takes account of all costs, rather than externalizing them.
It doesn't matter what you think the prices "should" be. They are what they are and the market reacts accordingly. "Externalizing costs" is that reaction, it is a free market in action.
I have no idea what your point is with health care, that system has massive problems that are not caused by market forces. The only place I see market forces in play right now is with HMOs, and consequently they're driving hard for preventative medicine and healthy lifestyles to lower their costs.
See, there you buy into something that's provably false. If it were a free market, you would have the government enforcing labor laws..
Granted, if we had a world government that would enforce uniform labor laws and wage structures, that would satisfy free market conditions. We don't. I'm not saying it's right, but the disparity in benefits between unions, non-unions, and offshore workers is a real market force.
The tax codes on non-resident US corporations is pretty crooked as well and certainly contributes mightily to off shoring, but it doesn't fully account for it, and doesn't do anything to explain non-union shops taking away union business.
[Corporations lobby too, 80 years ago there was violence against unions]
True, but irrelevant. None of that makes $1 difference to the negative effect unions have had on our economy.
Perhaps unions had their place at one time to check the new power of the corporation, but that time has long since passed. It's a much more global economy now, Americans had better stop whining about the good old days and make some product before the world takes away the vast piles of money they have stored up. Or not. Perhaps it's time to give another country the chance to be the world leader in GDP.
You're pretty close I'd say, but then miss your own point.
Unions are a victim of their own success. They got better contracts and better benefits, which raised the price of the goods and services produced by union shops. Laws of the free market then shifted business away from union shops to offshore and non-union shops. Unions then resorted to some questionable tactics to "fight to keep what they have" from heavy lobbying and lawmaking to outright extortion and violence.
This fight has cost our country, and has negatively affected *your* wages as well as mine. This is not information from Faux News, just google economists and unions. E.g. , economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio University calculated that labor unions have cost the American economy $50 trillion over the past 50 years alone and it also found that wages in general suffered dramatically as a result of an economy that is 30 to 40 percent smaller than it would have been in the absence of labor unionism.
Sorry, I know it's good for you and your family right now, but you can't mess with the free market without consequences down the road.
Gratzel Cells have been around for quite some time. The trick is to get any kind of efficiency out of them. Wake me when I can buy one, I'm getting sick of seeing solar cell venture capitalist hype every two weeks.
But yes, even 9% is better than curent gas storage, which is much less than 5% hydrogen by weight. The DOE target for 2010 is 6%. And even then you'd be about five times the volume using compressed gas for a given amout of hydrogen.
OK, you seem like a reasonable person, so I'll try to sell it.
So let's get the facts out of the way: Instead of quoting lots of sources, all of which would of couse be suspect to one degree or another due to funding, politics, etc. Just have a look at http://www.ipcc.ch/ That's about the strongest scientific consensus you're ever going to see. About anything. You probably couldn't get as many scientists to agree about the gravitational constant.
Now to consequences. Yes, the world won't end. It's just going to get more unpleasant, and more expensive. Have a look at the report. Look at the rainfall predictions. Those poorer countries you see with lower rainfall are going to have more drought and people in those specific areas will die without massive aid. How's that aid thing been working out for the drought regions in Africa lately? Yes, yes, if the goverments there could all just get along, etc....
Can anyone say exactly when and which exact areas will be affected? No. Can anyone say exaclty which people will die if we legalize drunk driving? No. But neither is a good argument. The scientific fact, with as much scientific certainty as say... evolution *gasp*.... is that it will happen.
You have focused on ocean levels, but that's really a minor point compared to other affects, such as the threat to the North Atlactic current, but let's have a look. For your strawman of 10cm, I think what you've said is fairly accurate. But that's the low end of the IPCCs estimates for the next 100 years, with 88cm being the high, and no end in sight until we do something, and even then we won't see the levels stabilize for centuries after temperatures do. What do *you* think will happen with a 1m rise in the highest of the high tides? I'd say, for example, about 10% of Manhattan will flood 5-10 times a century unless massive dikes are built. There's 50 billion dollars down the drain on a tiny example.
And that's really the point. What do we (in the US) have to gain by ignoring the problem? A hundred billion per year or so in GDP on the high side: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/cost.html
What do we stand to lose? That's a tougher number to estimate. Honestly, in the near term, say under 100 years, we won't approach that 100 billion number in the US. Other, more equatorial countries will, but we won't. In the longer run, though, it will catch up with us, and by then we will have wiped out thousands of species and hundreds of entire ecosystems. All of this is in the IPCC report. Have a look.
Amen brother! Testify!
Early adopters to industry: "We are not regular consumers with more money. We want to hook up your new technology to our blender, toaster, and the Internet simultaneously just to see if we can. If you take that away, good luck selling your first gen. product to Joe Sixpack at WalMart."
I'd like to see your last two sentences on a banner at a trade show.
OK, we can't really explain the whole entaglement thing without using big words and wave equations, but here's a very close analogy:
Say you have two balls, one red, and one blue. You blindly put them into two identical boxes, and ship one to Pluto. After that's done, you open the box here on Earth and see that it's red. You instantly know the color of the ball on Pluto is blue. What good does that do you? Nothing.
The quantum entaglement is almost the same, except that the balls don't finalize their color until you look at one. But the information is just as useless.
The question of This + Quantum Entaglement is also flawed, you can't have both. If you set the spin of one, you've destroyed the entaglement.
I find playing single player is a little like getting out the playboy magazines and locking yourself in your room in favour of meeting up with your girlfriend
Yes, but I find multi-player games to be playing video games in favor of meeting up with your girlfriend.
Single-player games are easier to fit into cracks in the schedule. They also fill a need for introversion. If I feel like playing multi-player, I go outside and play non-virtual. True, that may change as the body ages and becomes less able to get fragged for real. Let's just hope that the industry doesn't neglect multi in favor of single or vice versa. They both have their merits.
OK, so Symantec makes money selling products that patch up problems with Windows OSes. Microsoft trying to put them out of a job. I'm not saying Vista is really achieving this goal, but what sort of report did you expect from Symantec? "Wow, this Vista really makes our products unnecssary"!
FUD. At least they learned Microsoft's greatest marketing strategy.
Exxon pays his salary. Here's another of his gems: Global warming is good for plants!
It's funny how I get a hopeful feeling when I see that there may still be some credible debate on this topic. Sadly the truth really is inconvenient, and depressing.
Zero of those traffic deaths have been scientificly proven to be caused by pot. There are very few studies available, but those that have been done (here's one link) seem to show that the paranoia more than offsets the loss of attention and motor coordiantion. The US NHTSA and DOT came to similar conclusions. Of course if it were legal, it would stand to reason that there would be less paranoia of getting pulled over and this effect would reduce. In case you're curious, the DOT figures for drivers in injury accidents testing positive for pot without alchohol was 2%, no control figure was given, but I'd wager the figure for drivers on pot is a little above 2%.
Disclaimer: don't use it, just irked that I'm forced to use inferior drugs like alchohol.
This is nonsense. Micron could achieve the same objective by simply lowering their prices.
Probably. That's what game theory would predict. And that's what they should have done, it would have been legal.
Micron informing its competitors of the reason for the price cut is merely a courtesy.
Nope. It's a very important and damning point. That direct information sharing is the definition of overt collusion, and it's illegal. They should have been smarter and just hinted at it in a press release or stock analyst meeting.
The fact that they *could* have easily done the same thing legally does not make their actions legal, it just makes them stupid.
I'm quite sure you're right, and just a little more explanation for those who don't already know: The energy required to produce a traditional silicon based solar cell is about equal to 8 years of constant daytime operation of that cell. Not coincidentally, if you put them up to power your house, it takes about 8-10 years to save enough money on your power bill to pay for the cells.
Thin film cells promise to reduce this to less than 2 years, but they're not yet here in significant production.
Memory Stick: yes, base 10. They almost all are.
Also, Network card speed, processor speed, camera resolution, and others, all base 10.
Not only hard drives, not by a long shot.
This format war is almost over, and base 10 is winning. Adapt.
"And if you don't send it we'll still spend it, faster than ever" - G.W. Bush 2002-present.
Since when has (federal) government spending been correlated to government income? You can't curtail spending by limiting income. You can only curtail spending by curtailing spending.
This is so sad.
Um, were you referring to something in particular?
No, you're not paying enough to take that stance.
You don't pay all the other students, you don't pay all of the school's costs for that class. You don't make the rules.
I paid for my car, I pay taxes for the roads, but I don't get to drive on the left side.
BS. I worked my way through college and only my party schedule interfered with studying. And transcribing your own notes is a *very* good method of study. Even just paraphrasing textbooks into notes is a good way to remember stuff. It makes you process the information instead of just glazing over and thinking about something else.
Good advice from the prof. If you don't have time to do even that much studying, time to make a life choice.
One person's lies are another person's truth. Who decides?
I'm always suspicious of people that want to put limits on the flow of ideas, e.g. speech. If an idea is abhorrent or rings false to most people, they will speak and act against the speaker. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of one's speech. There is no need for a society to stop any form of pure speech before it starts.
Yes. Without question. (To the public posting without notification part, the "sent beyond your computer" part is pretty stupid).
You claim to not be partisan, but this sounds a lot like the "but the Democrats/Clinton did it!" argument. Each party and individual should be judged by their actions alone.
FYI, if you bough these with a credit card you can reverse the changes on the unused portion. The credit card company holds on to a chunk of money long after a company goes under for cases like this.
Suckage indeed. Interstate 82 ranks down there with the movies Alien 3 and Highlander 2 as sequels that not only sucked, but managed to crap all over their fine predecessor in the process.
I agree with the grandparent, and disagree with you.
There's no governing body of scientific terms, but I've seen many proposed laws with no prior history of being called a theory. In my physics experience, laws are almost always a mathematical model of observed behavior with no attempt to explain the underlying reasons or mechanics of said behavior.
Laws are theories as they fit all the definitions of a theory, but they don't become laws by extra proof, rather by their initial limited nature. For example, there is a law of gravity ( F = G Ma Mb / r^2 ) and there are separately various theories of gravity such as general relativity.