I want a required "Good till" date printed on them, that guarantees they last at least X days, just like soda.
Yeah, most of them will last a lot longer than the printed date, because chances are you won't buy them and install them on the day they make them.
But still, if a curly bulb is supposed to last 5 years, and it dies one year after you install it, there should be an easy way to get a refund.
While lifetime is complicated and involves on/off cycles in addition to runtime, a bulb rated to last 16,000/hours will be past its lifetime after 2 years of 24x7 use (but would last 12 years at 4 hours/day). So a simple expiration date is not realistic.
If you gave trouble returning bulbs that died after a day, you need a better retailer.
LEDs are only expensive if your electricity is free. If you replace a 100w bulb with a 20w replacement and burn it 4 hours/day, you'll save 117 kWh/year. Or $14/year at $.12/kWh. If you get just 6000 hours of life from it, it will last about 4 years and will have saved you about $60 over that time.
Not trying to be contentious here, but if you wanted optimal resource usage, you'd be looking more at blade-style compute nodes with no local drives.
Who would you be contentious with? I'm just telling you what Amazon says in their published docs. If you don't believe what they say, or if you think they could do it better you can bring it up with them, or start your own cloud service that does things "right".
But I can tell you that some use cases are perfect for Amazon's model of providing locally attached instance storage since I/O rates are much better than we can get with EBS volumes.
Xen is software, not AWS, AWS is an entire infrastructure, and they can not (or will not) live migrate customer VM's.
They are very clear in their documentation that customers should be able to tolerate VM restarts and to use multiple AZ's and regions to help mitigate downtime. I have several hundred instances scheduled for reboot, but they are doing one AZ at a time.
Since Xen is rumored to be the VM host for AWS (or at least large parts of it), I'd have to think it's "will not".
I can believe it's "can not", since amazon provides gigabytes (or terabytes) of local instance storage for most of their instance types - that's a lot of data to live migrate. Even if the underlying Xen software technically *can* live migrate VM's, that doesn't mean their infrastructure can support migrating thousands of customer instances.
Except that in a cloud, storage is part of the cloud, not part of the server. The only thing that has to physically move is the RAM image of the running VM from one host to another. And it's almost certainly going to be faster to replicate that than to destroy and rebuild it (reboot).
No, Amazon says that instance storage is directly attached to the host machine, so if they live-migrate a VM, they'd have to carry along the instance storage.
Many Amazon EC2 instance types can access disk storage from disks that are physically attached to the host computer. This disk storage is referred to as instance store.
And there's no evidence that they use any type of shared SAN for instance storage -- instance storage only stays around for as long as the machine is running (or rebooted). If you stop the machine (as opposed to rebooting), or if Amazon has to migrate to a new physical host, you lose the instance store.
A screenshot of a report is a poor substitute for an Excel or PDF report where you can copy and paste the data.
This is where picatext or other OCR software comes in handy.
Also... in principle, you could make or use screenshot software which also captures the text from the window shown.
I can't think of a worse use for OCR software than for reporting. "Hey, why are all of the category zero items showing up under category O? And why were all of the accent marks turned into apostrophes?"
When the manager looks at an old PDF report a year from now, he knows that the numbers will be exactly the same as the last time he looked at it.
When he runs a new report for that time period, he has no such assurance that the numbers will be the same or even there at all. "Oh, we reclassified some of the expense categories last month, so the numbers are a little different" or "Oh yeah, when we migrated from the old database 6 months ago, and it was too hard to import some of the older data, so we left it out" or "Oh yeah, we decided that we only need to keep 9 months of historical data" or "Oh really? The numbers are different now? Maybe that's a bug, file a bug report and we'll bring it up with the vendor".
Dashboards & online reports are great when you have access to them. But what if the dashboard isn't available, or you need to provide the data to someone who doesn't have access to the dashboard?
Open the dashboard in a web browser, take a screenshot, export it to JPEG, and send it as an e-mail attachment.
A screenshot of a report is a poor substitute for an Excel or PDF report where you can copy and paste the data.
Xen is software, not AWS, AWS is an entire infrastructure, and they can not (or will not) live migrate customer VM's.
They are very clear in their documentation that customers should be able to tolerate VM restarts and to use multiple AZ's and regions to help mitigate downtime. I have several hundred instances scheduled for reboot, but they are doing one AZ at a time.
Since Xen is rumored to be the VM host for AWS (or at least large parts of it), I'd have to think it's "will not".
I can believe it's "can not", since amazon provides gigabytes (or terabytes) of local instance storage for most of their instance types - that's a lot of data to live migrate. Even if the underlying Xen software technically *can* live migrate VM's, that doesn't mean their infrastructure can support migrating thousands of customer instances.
Amazon doesn't have the capacity to failover all the vm's to other hardware (maybe some but not all or big ones). Or they don't want to bother and force the work on to their customers.
I think you meant "and charge customers for the much larger infrastructure required". Amazon is cheap, and they are clear that what you're buying from them is just a bunch of machines. If you want reliability, use multiple AZ's and regions. Some of their VM's come with a TB or more of instance storage, that's a lot of data to live-migrate when they want to reboot a physical host machine.
If you want live migration, check out Google Compute Engine, but if availability is important to you, you're better off architecting multiple machine redundancy than relying on a single long-lived machine since there are a lot more things than host maintenance that can trigger a crash and/or reboot of a VM.
A lot of people want the convenience of a virtual server, but not the price tag or hassle of several servers and a load balancer. They don't "get" why they would pay for lots of small machines when one big one would do. Once you do convince them to go with several small servers and a load balancer, they don't understand why their FTP changes take a moment to show up online. Then they don't don't want to invest in someone to setup the system with puppet or ansible or the like... The list goes on, but it usually comes down to people not having the money or desire(usually both) to do things "the cloud way."
Most of these small players would be happier with a single 2-drive RAID-1 server in their closet, except they are too cheap to shell out for a decent machine in the first place as well as business tier internet (they usually don't have the traffic to warrant it, but is required for ISPs to be OK with it). $5/month for a VPS is much more palatable, even if what they get is a lot less powerful then they could have in their office.
There's no business tier small office internet that's going to give users the same uptime as a cheap VPS somewhere. No business that wants to maintain a 24x7 internet presence should be running their server on a small server in their closet.
How much longer would it take to migrate the existing vms to patched version. (even if you only have 10% unutilized resources it'd only take at most nine swaps) I agree it's a bad solution to move every machine over night but it's better than forcing an outage.
AWS can't live migrate VM's.
Xen can.
Well, actually, for about 100ms, the system isn't technically running, but the point is that you can bounce a VM from one host to another without rebooting it.
Xen is software, not AWS, AWS is an entire infrastructure, and they can not (or will not) live migrate customer VM's.
They are very clear in their documentation that customers should be able to tolerate VM restarts and to use multiple AZ's and regions to help mitigate downtime. I have several hundred instances scheduled for reboot, but they are doing one AZ at a time.
How much longer would it take to migrate the existing vms to patched version. (even if you only have 10% unutilized resources it'd only take at most nine swaps) I agree it's a bad solution to move every machine over night but it's better than forcing an outage.
I saw in the Mpls Star Tribune the other day that Amazon are going to start charging (MN residents) sales tax as from 1st October.
I don't know if this will apply to digital content as well but if it does then I will have to cut back on buying books, magazines, and music from them as well.
The only stuff we will be able to buy is clothes...
If Amazon is collecting sales tax, it means that you were supposed to have already been paying the sales tax, and you're practicing tax evasion if you haven't paying sales or use tax on your purchases.
Yeah I'm sure they'll be able to patch in more structural integrity. I guess in the quest for thinness they forgot about strength.
They can't, don't be stupid. If they apply a patch to increase the structural integrity field, that will negatively affect the battery life or they would have turned it up in the first place. Those force fields really eat into the battery life. The Apple Reality Distortion field is bad enough.
Just because you use wifi doesn't mean ethernet is somehow depricated. Some choose to not use wifi for security concerns (lots of nonsense with home gear lately),
Even if I had ethernet to every room, I'd still want Wifi since the devices I use every day don't have ethernet ports, so there goes the security (though with careful network segmentation, I could keep the Wifi network separate from the wired network, but that sounds like a lot of work for a home network)
or even future proofing.
Wifi speeds keep moving forward, but are already fast enough that most home users wouldn't notice any difference between wireless and wired speeds. Though as frequencies increase, putting a Wifi node in each room might be neccessary.
There is a simplicity with ethernet that can be appreciated, installing it to every room may not make sense for you, but it may for others.
Hence my question "What do you use it for", which you didn't really answer.
You must live in an amazingly quiet RF area, or have paper-thin walls.
With 802.11n I don't see transfer speeds higher then 1.1 mb/s, presuming only 1 device is online.
I live in a newish condo, built within the past 10 years, standard wood framed construction. I live in a 50 unit condo complex with a 60 unit apartment across the street, I can see dozens of my neighbor's SSID's, so it's not exactly an RF dead zone. (well, at least not in the 2.4Ghz band. Seems that AT&T is still issuing single band Wifi equipment since I see a lot of AT&T SSID's, but none in 5Ghz, I still get my own 5Ghz channel because 5Ghz is so rarely used around here)
I use an Asus RT-66U as my Wifi router, centrally located on the second floor, antennas rotated horizontally to try to maximize vertical radiation patterns to get more signal downstairs.
Small setup here: 12U rack with 2 servers and one switch (Yes, I have ethernet sockets in every room except toilets, though I regret a bit I did not install one there)
What do you do with ethernet to each room? I have a single 802.11n dual band Wifi router that serves the whole house, I can stream at least up to the speed of my internet connection (50mbit) from anywhere in the house and in the small front or back yards. My TVs are both Wifi enabled, and I can stream "SuperHD" Netflix streams from both simultaneously. I have a second 802.11bg Wifi router that's dedicated to a few several IP security cameras.I have a central fileserver plugged into the ethernet port on the Wifi router that stores DVD's, and all of my computers run backups to the fileserver.
So, I'm curious what you do with your home network that you need ethernet to each room?
So in a disaster, when SMS i the only communication left, they want to encourage people to send even *more* SMS messages to ensure that SMS's fail too?
It's not likely to work very well, in the one disaster I was in where I could use SMS but nothing else (even my landline had no dialtone), SMS between customers of the same carrier worked well. SMS messages destined for other carriers took hours to arrive, sometimes longer, some didn't make it through at all. SMS's coming through an SMS to Email gateway stopped coming through at all, until after the disaster when they all came through at once.
That's one more headache for small businesses. Oh great, I forgot to check supplies because I was on Yelp. Now we're out of Dijon mustard. Next thing you know, there's a 1-star review from somebody who loves Dijon mustard. If there isn't any existing law, conspiracy to place unwarranted negative reviews should also be illegal. Competitors and their employees should be barred, or at the very least required to disclose their positions. That would be similar to the financial talking heads on TV who have to say if they own the stocks they discuss.
If the business ran out of Dijon mustard, they deserve the one star review from the Dijon lover -- that way other Dijon lovers can steer clear. Why shouldn't a restaurant get bad reviews for not stocking an expected condiment? If the restaurant doesn't have time to stock basic supplies, what else is falling through the cracks?
But getting rid of those bikers, which honestly do not belong on the road, could only of helped.
They didn't get the cyclists off the roads (what do you think they did? Build elevated cycling pathways above the road?), they accommodated cyclists on the shared streets.
The cyclists are still there, the cars are still there, but everyone has a little more room, is safer, and traffic moves more smoothly, sounds like a win all around.
Your mom is a visible light detector every time anyone looks at her.
Put differently, the moon is not being turned into a detector of anything, but "astronomers are building a telescope" is not a very catchy headline.
But it's not like they are just bouncing the high energy particles off the moon and then detecting them, they are letting the particles hit the moon, then are picking up the secondary effects.
If you want a "your mom" analogy, I think a better analogy would be if they hoisted your mom by crane and dangled her in front of a microwave antenna to make her a "microwave detector" - scientists on the ground will measure her temperature with an IR camera, he she heats up, then there's microwave radiation.
Lol they'll post the spacing in metric and people in the US will be totally lost. 145mm of room, wow thats a lot!!!
I know you're just trying to make a stupid american joke but as long as all airlines use the same units, the actual units don't matter when making comparisons. Whether it's mm, milli-yards or SBW(standard butt width), consumers can easily pick the larger number if that's important to them.
The only way this would work is to place height restrictions on the different classes of seat. I'm an academic and when travelling for work I have to purchase the cheapest ticket. Without a height restriction I would then be forced to purchase a ticket for a seat I physically could not sit down it (I already have to pull out the magazines on US carriers to allow blood flow to my feet).
This can then open the debate about whether it is reasonable for an airline to charge someone extra just for being tall - something they had no control over and which is gender-biased. After all they don't charge more to provide special meals for those with dietary preferences or religious beliefs and, with the exception of medical conditions, that is a voluntary choice. Nor, I hope, do they charge disabled passengers extra for transporting wheelchairs etc.
It's not just height, it's really just the length of the legs as opposed to the torso, or more specifically, the length of the thighbone. Weight is also a factor. Would the airlines have measuring centers where consumers would need to be measured before they can buy a ticket?
If airlines started putting size restrictions on seats, would that mean that smaller people would be forced into buying seats with a less room to save the larger seats for bigger people? Or would the restriction only prevent larger people from buying a smaller seat? When the large seats are sold out, would you be ok with not taking that flight? Sounds like you already manage to fly in ill-fitting seats today, are you willing to give up the ability to fly on some flights in order to get a seat that fits you better?
Airlines are running into physical space issues. In their quest for ever more seats
It's not the airlines quest for more seats, it's the passengers' quest for even cheaper fares.
If airline A has 34 inches of pitch with a $550 ticket and airline B has 30 inches for $500, the passengers will flock to the $500 ticket.
Passengers need to start making it clear with their wallet that they are no longer going to fly lower-priced sardine airlines.
If airlines were required to advertise seat pitch and width, then consumers could make that choice, but when even consumers that care about it have trouble finding out exactly which aircraft serves a route for their date of travel and what the seat configuration is, it's hard to blame consumers for not taking it into account.
Slashdot Mirror
way too early.
I want a required "Good till" date printed on them, that guarantees they last at least X days, just like soda.
Yeah, most of them will last a lot longer than the printed date, because chances are you won't buy them and install them on the day they make them.
But still, if a curly bulb is supposed to last 5 years, and it dies one year after you install it, there should be an easy way to get a refund.
While lifetime is complicated and involves on/off cycles in addition to runtime, a bulb rated to last 16,000/hours will be past its lifetime after 2 years of 24x7 use (but would last 12 years at 4 hours/day). So a simple expiration date is not realistic.
If you gave trouble returning bulbs that died after a day, you need a better retailer.
LEDs are only expensive if your electricity is free. If you replace a 100w bulb with a 20w replacement and burn it 4 hours/day, you'll save 117 kWh/year. Or $14/year at $.12/kWh. If you get just 6000 hours of life from it, it will last about 4 years and will have saved you about $60 over that time.
Not trying to be contentious here, but if you wanted optimal resource usage, you'd be looking more at blade-style compute nodes with no local drives.
Who would you be contentious with? I'm just telling you what Amazon says in their published docs. If you don't believe what they say, or if you think they could do it better you can bring it up with them, or start your own cloud service that does things "right".
But I can tell you that some use cases are perfect for Amazon's model of providing locally attached instance storage since I/O rates are much better than we can get with EBS volumes.
Xen is software, not AWS, AWS is an entire infrastructure, and they can not (or will not) live migrate customer VM's.
They are very clear in their documentation that customers should be able to tolerate VM restarts and to use multiple AZ's and regions to help mitigate downtime. I have several hundred instances scheduled for reboot, but they are doing one AZ at a time.
Since Xen is rumored to be the VM host for AWS (or at least large parts of it), I'd have to think it's "will not".
I can believe it's "can not", since amazon provides gigabytes (or terabytes) of local instance storage for most of their instance types - that's a lot of data to live migrate. Even if the underlying Xen software technically *can* live migrate VM's, that doesn't mean their infrastructure can support migrating thousands of customer instances.
Except that in a cloud, storage is part of the cloud, not part of the server. The only thing that has to physically move is the RAM image of the running VM from one host to another. And it's almost certainly going to be faster to replicate that than to destroy and rebuild it (reboot).
No, Amazon says that instance storage is directly attached to the host machine, so if they live-migrate a VM, they'd have to carry along the instance storage.
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWS...
Many Amazon EC2 instance types can access disk storage from disks that are physically attached to the host computer. This disk storage is referred to as instance store.
And there's no evidence that they use any type of shared SAN for instance storage -- instance storage only stays around for as long as the machine is running (or rebooted). If you stop the machine (as opposed to rebooting), or if Amazon has to migrate to a new physical host, you lose the instance store.
A screenshot of a report is a poor substitute for an Excel or PDF report where you can copy and paste the data.
This is where picatext or other OCR software comes in handy.
Also... in principle, you could make or use screenshot software which also captures the text from the window shown.
I can't think of a worse use for OCR software than for reporting. "Hey, why are all of the category zero items showing up under category O? And why were all of the accent marks turned into apostrophes?"
When the manager looks at an old PDF report a year from now, he knows that the numbers will be exactly the same as the last time he looked at it.
When he runs a new report for that time period, he has no such assurance that the numbers will be the same or even there at all. "Oh, we reclassified some of the expense categories last month, so the numbers are a little different" or "Oh yeah, when we migrated from the old database 6 months ago, and it was too hard to import some of the older data, so we left it out" or "Oh yeah, we decided that we only need to keep 9 months of historical data" or "Oh really? The numbers are different now? Maybe that's a bug, file a bug report and we'll bring it up with the vendor".
Dashboards & online reports are great when you have access to them. But what if the dashboard isn't available, or you need to provide the data to someone who doesn't have access to the dashboard?
Open the dashboard in a web browser, take a screenshot, export it to JPEG, and send it as an e-mail attachment.
A screenshot of a report is a poor substitute for an Excel or PDF report where you can copy and paste the data.
Xen is software, not AWS, AWS is an entire infrastructure, and they can not (or will not) live migrate customer VM's.
They are very clear in their documentation that customers should be able to tolerate VM restarts and to use multiple AZ's and regions to help mitigate downtime. I have several hundred instances scheduled for reboot, but they are doing one AZ at a time.
Since Xen is rumored to be the VM host for AWS (or at least large parts of it), I'd have to think it's "will not".
I can believe it's "can not", since amazon provides gigabytes (or terabytes) of local instance storage for most of their instance types - that's a lot of data to live migrate. Even if the underlying Xen software technically *can* live migrate VM's, that doesn't mean their infrastructure can support migrating thousands of customer instances.
Amazon doesn't have the capacity to failover all the vm's to other hardware (maybe some but not all or big ones). Or they don't want to bother and force the work on to their customers.
I think you meant "and charge customers for the much larger infrastructure required". Amazon is cheap, and they are clear that what you're buying from them is just a bunch of machines. If you want reliability, use multiple AZ's and regions. Some of their VM's come with a TB or more of instance storage, that's a lot of data to live-migrate when they want to reboot a physical host machine.
If you want live migration, check out Google Compute Engine, but if availability is important to you, you're better off architecting multiple machine redundancy than relying on a single long-lived machine since there are a lot more things than host maintenance that can trigger a crash and/or reboot of a VM.
A lot of people want the convenience of a virtual server, but not the price tag or hassle of several servers and a load balancer. They don't "get" why they would pay for lots of small machines when one big one would do. Once you do convince them to go with several small servers and a load balancer, they don't understand why their FTP changes take a moment to show up online. Then they don't don't want to invest in someone to setup the system with puppet or ansible or the like... The list goes on, but it usually comes down to people not having the money or desire(usually both) to do things "the cloud way."
Most of these small players would be happier with a single 2-drive RAID-1 server in their closet, except they are too cheap to shell out for a decent machine in the first place as well as business tier internet (they usually don't have the traffic to warrant it, but is required for ISPs to be OK with it). $5/month for a VPS is much more palatable, even if what they get is a lot less powerful then they could have in their office.
There's no business tier small office internet that's going to give users the same uptime as a cheap VPS somewhere. No business that wants to maintain a 24x7 internet presence should be running their server on a small server in their closet.
How much longer would it take to migrate the existing vms to patched version. (even if you only have 10% unutilized resources it'd only take at most nine swaps) I agree it's a bad solution to move every machine over night but it's better than forcing an outage.
AWS can't live migrate VM's.
Xen can.
Well, actually, for about 100ms, the system isn't technically running, but the point is that you can bounce a VM from one host to another without rebooting it.
Xen is software, not AWS, AWS is an entire infrastructure, and they can not (or will not) live migrate customer VM's.
They are very clear in their documentation that customers should be able to tolerate VM restarts and to use multiple AZ's and regions to help mitigate downtime. I have several hundred instances scheduled for reboot, but they are doing one AZ at a time.
How much longer would it take to migrate the existing vms to patched version. (even if you only have 10% unutilized resources it'd only take at most nine swaps) I agree it's a bad solution to move every machine over night but it's better than forcing an outage.
AWS can't live migrate VM's.
I saw in the Mpls Star Tribune the other day that Amazon are going to start charging (MN residents) sales tax as from 1st October.
I don't know if this will apply to digital content as well but if it does then I will have to cut back on buying books, magazines, and music from them as well.
The only stuff we will be able to buy is clothes...
If Amazon is collecting sales tax, it means that you were supposed to have already been paying the sales tax, and you're practicing tax evasion if you haven't paying sales or use tax on your purchases.
http://www.revenue.state.mn.us...
Yeah I'm sure they'll be able to patch in more structural integrity. I guess in the quest for thinness they forgot about strength.
They can't, don't be stupid. If they apply a patch to increase the structural integrity field, that will negatively affect the battery life or they would have turned it up in the first place. Those force fields really eat into the battery life. The Apple Reality Distortion field is bad enough.
Just because you use wifi doesn't mean ethernet is somehow depricated. Some choose to not use wifi for security concerns (lots of nonsense with home gear lately),
Even if I had ethernet to every room, I'd still want Wifi since the devices I use every day don't have ethernet ports, so there goes the security (though with careful network segmentation, I could keep the Wifi network separate from the wired network, but that sounds like a lot of work for a home network)
or even future proofing.
Wifi speeds keep moving forward, but are already fast enough that most home users wouldn't notice any difference between wireless and wired speeds. Though as frequencies increase, putting a Wifi node in each room might be neccessary.
There is a simplicity with ethernet that can be appreciated, installing it to every room may not make sense for you, but it may for others.
Hence my question "What do you use it for", which you didn't really answer.
A PDP-8m with 16KW of core memory and a pair of 8" floppy drives, and a VT-320 video terminal.
To be fair, with 12 bit words, that 16KW memory is bigger than it sounds. Probably more memory than any home computer needs anyway.
You must live in an amazingly quiet RF area, or have paper-thin walls.
With 802.11n I don't see transfer speeds higher then 1.1 mb/s, presuming only 1 device is online.
I live in a newish condo, built within the past 10 years, standard wood framed construction. I live in a 50 unit condo complex with a 60 unit apartment across the street, I can see dozens of my neighbor's SSID's, so it's not exactly an RF dead zone. (well, at least not in the 2.4Ghz band. Seems that AT&T is still issuing single band Wifi equipment since I see a lot of AT&T SSID's, but none in 5Ghz, I still get my own 5Ghz channel because 5Ghz is so rarely used around here)
I use an Asus RT-66U as my Wifi router, centrally located on the second floor, antennas rotated horizontally to try to maximize vertical radiation patterns to get more signal downstairs.
Small setup here: 12U rack with 2 servers and one switch (Yes, I have ethernet sockets in every room except toilets, though I regret a bit I did not install one there)
What do you do with ethernet to each room? I have a single 802.11n dual band Wifi router that serves the whole house, I can stream at least up to the speed of my internet connection (50mbit) from anywhere in the house and in the small front or back yards. My TVs are both Wifi enabled, and I can stream "SuperHD" Netflix streams from both simultaneously. I have a second 802.11bg Wifi router that's dedicated to a few several IP security cameras.I have a central fileserver plugged into the ethernet port on the Wifi router that stores DVD's, and all of my computers run backups to the fileserver.
So, I'm curious what you do with your home network that you need ethernet to each room?
So in a disaster, when SMS i the only communication left, they want to encourage people to send even *more* SMS messages to ensure that SMS's fail too?
It's not likely to work very well, in the one disaster I was in where I could use SMS but nothing else (even my landline had no dialtone), SMS between customers of the same carrier worked well. SMS messages destined for other carriers took hours to arrive, sometimes longer, some didn't make it through at all. SMS's coming through an SMS to Email gateway stopped coming through at all, until after the disaster when they all came through at once.
That's one more headache for small businesses. Oh great, I forgot to check supplies because I was on Yelp. Now we're out of Dijon mustard. Next thing you know, there's a 1-star review from somebody who loves Dijon mustard. If there isn't any existing law, conspiracy to place unwarranted negative reviews should also be illegal. Competitors and their employees should be barred, or at the very least required to disclose their positions. That would be similar to the financial talking heads on TV who have to say if they own the stocks they discuss.
If the business ran out of Dijon mustard, they deserve the one star review from the Dijon lover -- that way other Dijon lovers can steer clear. Why shouldn't a restaurant get bad reviews for not stocking an expected condiment? If the restaurant doesn't have time to stock basic supplies, what else is falling through the cracks?
But getting rid of those bikers, which honestly do not belong on the road, could only of helped.
They didn't get the cyclists off the roads (what do you think they did? Build elevated cycling pathways above the road?), they accommodated cyclists on the shared streets.
The cyclists are still there, the cars are still there, but everyone has a little more room, is safer, and traffic moves more smoothly, sounds like a win all around.
Your mom is a visible light detector every time anyone looks at her.
Put differently, the moon is not being turned into a detector of anything, but "astronomers are building a telescope" is not a very catchy headline.
But it's not like they are just bouncing the high energy particles off the moon and then detecting them, they are letting the particles hit the moon, then are picking up the secondary effects.
If you want a "your mom" analogy, I think a better analogy would be if they hoisted your mom by crane and dangled her in front of a microwave antenna to make her a "microwave detector" - scientists on the ground will measure her temperature with an IR camera, he she heats up, then there's microwave radiation.
Lol they'll post the spacing in metric and people in the US will be totally lost. 145mm of room, wow thats a lot!!!
I know you're just trying to make a stupid american joke but as long as all airlines use the same units, the actual units don't matter when making comparisons. Whether it's mm, milli-yards or SBW(standard butt width), consumers can easily pick the larger number if that's important to them.
The only way this would work is to place height restrictions on the different classes of seat. I'm an academic and when travelling for work I have to purchase the cheapest ticket. Without a height restriction I would then be forced to purchase a ticket for a seat I physically could not sit down it (I already have to pull out the magazines on US carriers to allow blood flow to my feet).
This can then open the debate about whether it is reasonable for an airline to charge someone extra just for being tall - something they had no control over and which is gender-biased. After all they don't charge more to provide special meals for those with dietary preferences or religious beliefs and, with the exception of medical conditions, that is a voluntary choice. Nor, I hope, do they charge disabled passengers extra for transporting wheelchairs etc.
It's not just height, it's really just the length of the legs as opposed to the torso, or more specifically, the length of the thighbone. Weight is also a factor. Would the airlines have measuring centers where consumers would need to be measured before they can buy a ticket?
If airlines started putting size restrictions on seats, would that mean that smaller people would be forced into buying seats with a less room to save the larger seats for bigger people? Or would the restriction only prevent larger people from buying a smaller seat? When the large seats are sold out, would you be ok with not taking that flight? Sounds like you already manage to fly in ill-fitting seats today, are you willing to give up the ability to fly on some flights in order to get a seat that fits you better?
Airlines are running into physical space issues. In their quest for ever more seats
It's not the airlines quest for more seats, it's the passengers' quest for even cheaper fares.
If airline A has 34 inches of pitch with a $550 ticket and airline B has 30 inches for $500, the passengers will flock to the $500 ticket.
Passengers need to start making it clear with their wallet that they are no longer going to fly lower-priced sardine airlines.
If airlines were required to advertise seat pitch and width, then consumers could make that choice, but when even consumers that care about it have trouble finding out exactly which aircraft serves a route for their date of travel and what the seat configuration is, it's hard to blame consumers for not taking it into account.