Well, I also considered that, but what happens when a 1cm object is attached to a bigger one, which then enters another planet's atmosphere? It would be the first thing that ablates off, or would be near the surface when it hits the ground at supersonic speeds. Either way, living things on small things have no realistic chance of making it down to the surface alive.
The great thing about Diesel, I've found, is that it is safer to store locally. We have a 550 Gallon fuel storage tank. To store that full of petrol would be a lot more risky than storing it with diesel.
By buying it in bulk, when prices fluctuate down saves loads of money.
I'd also like to know this, it does sound very strange for a liquid to sublimate. Perhaps they are confusing evaporation due to a vacuum vs evaporation due to temperature?
No, (and the argument is commonly used for small drugs possession) but the cost to the state for all the smaller crimes is a significant net loss. I can't think of a good source except to point towards my wife as expert witness testimony, who can (for Ireland) list out the staggering cost for court appearances. I'm sure you are familiar with the stories about people who simply have to accept a fine because they can't afford to contest it, so settle for the fine even if innocent.
That's the darndest thing. I tried this after reading your post and found that one arm got tired quickly, but the other was able to keep at it for hours...
Well, I hope they are thinking more long term, where all cars on the road are automatically driven, and in constant communication with eachother. Then you only have to worry about the pavement, which can be partially solved by erecting foot-high barriers.
What I think would be the biggest issue is cyclists griefing the cars by passing in front of them or riding up really close to their side, as the car will be programmed to avoid or stop when ANYTHING on the road could be at risk, or put them at risk.
I guess cars will have to be fitted with deterrents (tranq dart guns) to deal with griefers.
The vast majority of collisions between cars and people happen in carparks and people reversing out of their driveways.
When you think about it, once everywhere has selfdriving cars (once it is governmentally mandated that all cars on the road must be self drive) then you do away with the traffic corps, signalling at junctions, speeding cameras and all the cost that goes along with maintaining all that and set up proper cycle routes and barriers to separate traffic from pedestrians.
Courts no longer have to deal with DUIs or speeding tickets, again reducing the cost to the government, and it stops people getting killed, which is a net tax gain, I think...
No, once self driving takes off properly, you are then able to make a whole lot of other changes that will prevent the situations that you predict.
Next time you are 20 cars back at a traffic light junction, count the length of time from when the light turns green to when you get to move off. Is it possible that you don't even get to get through the junction if you are that far back? Now imagine if all 20 cars are computer driven. Light turns green, Every Car Moves Together. Journeys are greatly reduced, there are much much fewer cars on the road at the same time because everyone got to where they were going already. Areas of road that are completely walled off from outside so no cyclist or pedestrian can interfere has convoys of cars 10cm apart doing 150 kph. Nobody ever is stopped because cross roads are gone, replaced with roundabouts where every car knows in advance where all the other cars are going to be and can adjust the speed so they hit the junction just at the right time, when no other car is in their path.
That's what self driving cars means. And if you think that we should throw that away because your intuition is better than engineering a system that make such accidents impossible, then I accuse you of being very narrow minded.
Why would I care? I have no cap. I really think you should ask yourself why you are paying for a service with limitations. In 8 years my 'cap' sill still be the same as my current 'cap' which is limited by the bandwidth and how much I can consider consuming.
My ISP have never complained yet about streamed netflix, or sky online. Perhaps you should switch provider to avoid a cap. And if you have no provider which offers it, I suggest you write to your government/trading standards about the cartel in operation preventing its introduction.
If they treated all content equally, then if you were watching streamed video on the Comcast system it would consume your 250gig cap. By making this content 'free' it allows you to consume more content from other networks. So, it can be argued that making a bandwidth expensive service not count towards your cap you are actually helping the other networks.
Of course, if you had no cap whatsoever, then there would be perfect neutrality all around.
I suppose your argument can be differently phrased: By making their own content not count towards a cap, then consumers will be more likely to use the Comcast service than another, and that is clearly not neutral. But how is this different to my mobile phone provider giving me free calls to people who are subscribers to the same mobile company? Is there no obligation for them to be neutral also?
Personally I haven't thought too much on this as for me net neutrality was always about speed and not allowances, since both my mobile and landline connections are unlimited (fair use applies) and I've never given consideration to download caps.
Would you complain about unfairness of net neutrality if, by the very nature of hosting the video within their network, the streaming speed (buffering not withstanding) was faster? Would you expect they deliberately slow down the delivery of the content to be fairer to that hosted by a competitor?
Like you say, perhaps ISPs shouldn't be allowed to host their own content at all in the first place. But at what point does providing customers with superior service become an abuse of net neutrality?
The GAME store in Dundrum, Ireland has/had (I'm not certain if it is closed) some great staff. They always seemed really into the games they sold, and never offered any kind of judgement.
I once pre-ordered WotLK expansion in Gamestop in Bray (Wicklow, Ireland) and I was excited to play it, so had taken 3 days off work and arrived the morning it launched at the shop door, just as they were opening. There were 3-4 other people there waiting for the store to open. When the clerk arrived and opened the door, you could see this look of "What a bunch of saddos" written plain on his face.
On the otherhand, the staff at GAME were totally different, offering midnight release of Cataclysm and SWTOR and other games, like MW3 & Battlefield 3 (though I didn't go to them), getting into the spirit of it and lamenting that they would have to be there for a few more hours, and thus not able to go and get playing themselves.
That GAME store definitely felt to me to be a shop by gamers for gamers.
I knew something was odd about that add for a Gay Male who finished school in '95 in the small town of Skibbereen working as a barista in Starbucks in Blackrock, with horn rim glasses and wearing a hoodie currently typing on... aaaarrrrgggggggggg
In Pharma, yes, there is a patent lifetime. In the US it is 20 years. Typically a drug is patented when the molecule is isolated and ready to be produced for clinical trial. Due to the length of clinical trials and market registration, which is about 8 years long, once on the market the drug has up to 12 years to make back the R&D costs (and turn a profit) before other companies can make a generic version to compete.
Where I work, the compounds are often so difficult to copy (and expensive to produce even if that is possible) that generic copies are rarer than more of the mainstream medications. Also, it is possible that the strength of the brand name is enough to allow a company to continue to market their drug at pre-expiry prices in the face of competition. But patents do definitely expire and I would believe that the 20 year lifetime of pharma patents is just about right. If it was shorter, then the companies would have to charge (even) more for the medicine to recoup their cost (and make a profit). If it was longer, then you wouldn't get so much innovation, as companies could just make the one drug for ever.
You cannot eradicate cancer, like you would a virus (smallpox). Cancer is an inherent flaw in the design of the human body (living past it's intended lifetime, not dying to wild animals) and we will have to put up with it for a very long time (until our understanding of medicine reaches a point where we can manipulate our genes to prevent cancer ever occurring in the first place).
If you have a cure for cancer, you will market it immediately, and make a whole lot of money. We will not reach a medical level to eradicate cancer in the patent lifetime of such a drug.
Believe it or not, there are still some people in big Pharma who are in it for the patients, not the money. And even if cancer was gone tomorrow, there would still be many many other things for big pharma to make money on, if that was all they are interested in.
Disclaimer: I work in big Pharma, and I see every day, people working hard for patients, not for the money.
I played Crysis 2 on the Xbox at a friend's house. He has a Samsung 3D TV using powered glasses (I don't know the tech involved, but they were not shutter glasses, apparently they send some sort of pulse through the lense) that were very comfortable.
Anyway, I nearly creamed myself. It is a crazy experience playing a FPS, looking down the iron sights and target being away there, in the distance, really...
The TV (I don't know the exact model) had it's own native conversion process for other games which worked really well, for games like Halo Reach and Portal 2. But Crysis 2, with it's native 3D setting, is amazing.
As for NVIDIA, I had a WoW Guildie who had it and was constantly bragging about how the game looked.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I also considered that, but what happens when a 1cm object is attached to a bigger one, which then enters another planet's atmosphere? It would be the first thing that ablates off, or would be near the surface when it hits the ground at supersonic speeds. Either way, living things on small things have no realistic chance of making it down to the surface alive.
How do objects this size survive the trip through the destination planet's atmosphere?
"640K ought to be enough for anybody"
Now give me Karma
Mobile phones, antennas and powerlines!
"You know RivenAleem, you could afford to lose a few pounds"
The great thing about Diesel, I've found, is that it is safer to store locally. We have a 550 Gallon fuel storage tank. To store that full of petrol would be a lot more risky than storing it with diesel.
By buying it in bulk, when prices fluctuate down saves loads of money.
I'd also like to know this, it does sound very strange for a liquid to sublimate. Perhaps they are confusing evaporation due to a vacuum vs evaporation due to temperature?
And we all know just how happy Larry Page is!
Well, he shouldn't have had the documents up his ass...
Yes, Yes it did
No, (and the argument is commonly used for small drugs possession) but the cost to the state for all the smaller crimes is a significant net loss. I can't think of a good source except to point towards my wife as expert witness testimony, who can (for Ireland) list out the staggering cost for court appearances. I'm sure you are familiar with the stories about people who simply have to accept a fine because they can't afford to contest it, so settle for the fine even if innocent.
That's the darndest thing. I tried this after reading your post and found that one arm got tired quickly, but the other was able to keep at it for hours...
Well, I hope they are thinking more long term, where all cars on the road are automatically driven, and in constant communication with eachother. Then you only have to worry about the pavement, which can be partially solved by erecting foot-high barriers.
What I think would be the biggest issue is cyclists griefing the cars by passing in front of them or riding up really close to their side, as the car will be programmed to avoid or stop when ANYTHING on the road could be at risk, or put them at risk.
I guess cars will have to be fitted with deterrents (tranq dart guns) to deal with griefers.
The vast majority of collisions between cars and people happen in carparks and people reversing out of their driveways.
When you think about it, once everywhere has selfdriving cars (once it is governmentally mandated that all cars on the road must be self drive) then you do away with the traffic corps, signalling at junctions, speeding cameras and all the cost that goes along with maintaining all that and set up proper cycle routes and barriers to separate traffic from pedestrians.
Courts no longer have to deal with DUIs or speeding tickets, again reducing the cost to the government, and it stops people getting killed, which is a net tax gain, I think...
No, once self driving takes off properly, you are then able to make a whole lot of other changes that will prevent the situations that you predict.
Next time you are 20 cars back at a traffic light junction, count the length of time from when the light turns green to when you get to move off. Is it possible that you don't even get to get through the junction if you are that far back? Now imagine if all 20 cars are computer driven. Light turns green, Every Car Moves Together. Journeys are greatly reduced, there are much much fewer cars on the road at the same time because everyone got to where they were going already. Areas of road that are completely walled off from outside so no cyclist or pedestrian can interfere has convoys of cars 10cm apart doing 150 kph. Nobody ever is stopped because cross roads are gone, replaced with roundabouts where every car knows in advance where all the other cars are going to be and can adjust the speed so they hit the junction just at the right time, when no other car is in their path.
That's what self driving cars means. And if you think that we should throw that away because your intuition is better than engineering a system that make such accidents impossible, then I accuse you of being very narrow minded.
Why would I care? I have no cap. I really think you should ask yourself why you are paying for a service with limitations. In 8 years my 'cap' sill still be the same as my current 'cap' which is limited by the bandwidth and how much I can consider consuming.
My ISP have never complained yet about streamed netflix, or sky online. Perhaps you should switch provider to avoid a cap. And if you have no provider which offers it, I suggest you write to your government/trading standards about the cartel in operation preventing its introduction.
This makes me glad to be Irish. And even gladder not to work in GAME.
Well, the way I see it is this.
If they treated all content equally, then if you were watching streamed video on the Comcast system it would consume your 250gig cap. By making this content 'free' it allows you to consume more content from other networks. So, it can be argued that making a bandwidth expensive service not count towards your cap you are actually helping the other networks.
Of course, if you had no cap whatsoever, then there would be perfect neutrality all around.
I suppose your argument can be differently phrased: By making their own content not count towards a cap, then consumers will be more likely to use the Comcast service than another, and that is clearly not neutral. But how is this different to my mobile phone provider giving me free calls to people who are subscribers to the same mobile company? Is there no obligation for them to be neutral also?
Personally I haven't thought too much on this as for me net neutrality was always about speed and not allowances, since both my mobile and landline connections are unlimited (fair use applies) and I've never given consideration to download caps.
Would you complain about unfairness of net neutrality if, by the very nature of hosting the video within their network, the streaming speed (buffering not withstanding) was faster? Would you expect they deliberately slow down the delivery of the content to be fairer to that hosted by a competitor?
Like you say, perhaps ISPs shouldn't be allowed to host their own content at all in the first place. But at what point does providing customers with superior service become an abuse of net neutrality?
The GAME store in Dundrum, Ireland has/had (I'm not certain if it is closed) some great staff. They always seemed really into the games they sold, and never offered any kind of judgement.
I once pre-ordered WotLK expansion in Gamestop in Bray (Wicklow, Ireland) and I was excited to play it, so had taken 3 days off work and arrived the morning it launched at the shop door, just as they were opening. There were 3-4 other people there waiting for the store to open. When the clerk arrived and opened the door, you could see this look of "What a bunch of saddos" written plain on his face.
On the otherhand, the staff at GAME were totally different, offering midnight release of Cataclysm and SWTOR and other games, like MW3 & Battlefield 3 (though I didn't go to them), getting into the spirit of it and lamenting that they would have to be there for a few more hours, and thus not able to go and get playing themselves.
That GAME store definitely felt to me to be a shop by gamers for gamers.
I thought this was about the Presidential election. Thankfully I take the time to read the the summary, well, most of it. Some.
I knew something was odd about that add for a Gay Male who finished school in '95 in the small town of Skibbereen working as a barista in Starbucks in Blackrock, with horn rim glasses and wearing a hoodie currently typing on ... aaaarrrrgggggggggg
In Pharma, yes, there is a patent lifetime. In the US it is 20 years. Typically a drug is patented when the molecule is isolated and ready to be produced for clinical trial. Due to the length of clinical trials and market registration, which is about 8 years long, once on the market the drug has up to 12 years to make back the R&D costs (and turn a profit) before other companies can make a generic version to compete.
Where I work, the compounds are often so difficult to copy (and expensive to produce even if that is possible) that generic copies are rarer than more of the mainstream medications. Also, it is possible that the strength of the brand name is enough to allow a company to continue to market their drug at pre-expiry prices in the face of competition. But patents do definitely expire and I would believe that the 20 year lifetime of pharma patents is just about right. If it was shorter, then the companies would have to charge (even) more for the medicine to recoup their cost (and make a profit). If it was longer, then you wouldn't get so much innovation, as companies could just make the one drug for ever.
You cannot eradicate cancer, like you would a virus (smallpox). Cancer is an inherent flaw in the design of the human body (living past it's intended lifetime, not dying to wild animals) and we will have to put up with it for a very long time (until our understanding of medicine reaches a point where we can manipulate our genes to prevent cancer ever occurring in the first place).
If you have a cure for cancer, you will market it immediately, and make a whole lot of money. We will not reach a medical level to eradicate cancer in the patent lifetime of such a drug.
Believe it or not, there are still some people in big Pharma who are in it for the patients, not the money. And even if cancer was gone tomorrow, there would still be many many other things for big pharma to make money on, if that was all they are interested in.
Disclaimer: I work in big Pharma, and I see every day, people working hard for patients, not for the money.
And once you cure one person, nobody else ever gets cancer again, ever.
I played Crysis 2 on the Xbox at a friend's house. He has a Samsung 3D TV using powered glasses (I don't know the tech involved, but they were not shutter glasses, apparently they send some sort of pulse through the lense) that were very comfortable.
Anyway, I nearly creamed myself. It is a crazy experience playing a FPS, looking down the iron sights and target being away there, in the distance, really...
The TV (I don't know the exact model) had it's own native conversion process for other games which worked really well, for games like Halo Reach and Portal 2. But Crysis 2, with it's native 3D setting, is amazing.
As for NVIDIA, I had a WoW Guildie who had it and was constantly bragging about how the game looked.
This makes no sense, either it's hit or it isn't. That's a 50% chance.
Trixxy Hobbitses!