Sorry but you didn't read the article very well; "Renewable energies... the main source of electricity in the country, With 32.3% in 2010." Only 32.3% was produced by renewable energy. It is the main source as the other sectors (natural gas, coal, oil, hydro, etc) do not individually produce more than that. Even the 32% is a statistical fallacy. They just lump all renewable sources into one category to make it look big. If all non-renewable sources were lumped together they would be the "main source".
You are correct that you could watch movies all day long. The pertinent fact is that most people don't. You also can't watch one move while your kid watches another while your wife watches another while you upload torrents to the web.
It is the same thing as landline usage. A business pays more for a landline phone than a household due to businesses having a higher usage. The higher usage requires more infrastructure and therefore costs more to support
Unlimited plans are available because carriers know that all the smart phones will not be accessing the net all the time. I doubt very much that many people will be watching movies or downloading torrents for hours at a time on a smartphone. If you get enough people doing this, as would happen if tethering was allowed, you would swamp the carrier network.
Yes the bits are the same but the usage pattern is much different between tethering and smartphone use. If you insist on tethering to unlimited plans say goodbye to unlimited plans. A tethers device can consume much more bandwidth than a smartphone.
PS to those who ask why pay for higher speed? Latency; a consumer wants to get information as fast as possible after pressing send. Smartphones are not receiving all the time but when they do speed is important.
"Defenders agaust the selfish, and irresposible profit-seeking bio-companies" when those companies might prevent disasters like the Irish potato famine of 1740-1741. There are a lot of people on the planet and disease resistant crops are very important in feeding them.
Another issue is that it is up to food regulators to make reasonable rules to reign in irresponsible companies. An interesting point that the slanted report did not mention; the trial was done by the University of Ghent and not company.
Pressure needs to be applied globally to force *ALL* countries to support human rights, privacy, freedom of speech + movement, etc.!
Encourage? Yes. Lead by example? Yes. Assist with revolution? Yes. Force to change? No. It is up to the people of a sovereign country to decide what they want their country to be. It is not the place of another country to impose their views and morality on another country. That is merely war by another means.
Couldn't it be possible that the comet impacts created the water containing glass? A sufficiently large impact should melt some rock that may look lite it was brought up from inside the moon. The current theory is that water is deposited by comets; why not the glass too?
And paper books are never out of date, missing pages and take up such a small volume.
As for batteries running out I bet there will be a charger installed in the cockpit. If that charger dies that probably means the pilot has no electricity at all and reading a manual is the least of his concerns.
So all the court convictions of insider traders on the NYSE does not point to the fact that insider trading happens there? Just because the NYSE itself is not doing insider trading does not mean that the NYSE is not related to it. That would be like banning the picture of a gun involved in a murder because the gun manufacturer did not pull the trigger and does not want to be associated with murder.
I am not related in any way to paedophilia therefore I could sue for slander. The NYSE, where insider trading does occur, is related to the story. If the NYSE feels slandered then sue for slander; don't try to hide behind an unrelated law.
Trademark law is there to protect a trade mark from being used by someone else to advertise their similar product.The news report did not post a picture and attempt to pass it off as their trading floor. That is dilution of brand and therefore against trademark law. I can use a trademark any time I want as long as it refers to the owner of the trademark. For example, Pepsi can display Coke's Trademark if they are doing a comparison. They do not need a license to do it. I could also write an article about the use of high fructose corn syrup, display a Coke can and Coke could do nothing about it.
Great test of a system; Not. We have no idea if they actually placed the package in the correct area. "We test the system by sending a package" is not a study.
First it is completely different from a newspaper/reporter relationship (not just backassward). In the first case the reporter is creating a "work for hire" which is a well established principle. In the Doctors/patient case the patient is paying the doctor so "work for hire" does not apply.
There is also a huge loophole in the contract. A patient goes to a doctor and has an issue. The patient verbally tells a friend about the issue. The friend posts a review. There is no stipulation about verbal communication in the contract.
Unless you are producing novel, patentable ideas you are not indispensable; there is someone out there who can do your job. The "irreplaceable" attitude will bite you in the ass. When I hear someone say they are indispensable the phrase "pompous ass" comes to mind.
If you want a raise, make a case for it based on what you are doing now and how it is different that what you were doing before. If you were being underpaid before you need to make the case as to why you stayed.
For small business equity is a very complex issue. It is not like a small private company can just hand you some stock. They may need to make you a partner which is not simple. I you believe you should be a partner then make that case.
Write it down. You look more serious and organized. It allows you to look over your words and polish your presentation. It also allows your boss to re-read it and gain more clarity on your position.
The thing that many people do not understand about business is risk. Yes you contributed to the growth of the company but you did not risk your house, savings and credits rating to get there. What if things went bad? You could walk away but your boss could not. Since you are not the accountant, how do you know they are doing so well? You see the income but you don't see the outlay. There is a lot of overhead that goes into running a business; taxes, accounting, insurance, clerical staff, etc. You bosses may have taken out loans to start the business and they may not be paid off yet.
The reason the company must be separate is to make cost hiding much more difficult.
1. The technicians who work for the city IT department and are paid by the city IT budget but actually install and maintain the broadband infrastructure. 2. The accounting personnel paid by the city administration budget who actually spend most of their time dealing with broadband bills. 3. The consumables used used by the above personnel that are paid for by the city budget.
It is very easy to hide costs in a city budget. These hidden costs are paid for by every taxpayer and not just those who are paying the city for the broadband. Without being financially separate it is impossible to find out exactly how much money is being spent on the city broadband service.
Possibly because 95% of the spammers have tried other services but were only accepted by these three. If they were cut off by these three they might not be accepted by other vendors and their money would be cut off. Maybe the other 5% are just operating low volumes and under the radar.
Whenever approaching something new, one has expectations on how things will go. If the expectation is that new technology is "hard and complex" one's subconscious will work to make that true. Most elderly people are under the impression that technology=complex.
The statement that a user interface should be intuitive to someone with 0 experience is stupid. If someone has no experience working with something they will transfer experience from something similar. My advice to low experience users; read the manual.
I hate article like the one referred to; heavy on what is wrong and very light on what to do about it. It is very easy to point at issues but the magic is in solving them.
You might want to check the bill. "21804. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any manufacturer of optical discs who violates this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be subject to a fine of not less than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) and not more than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for a first offense, and shall be subject to a fine of not less than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) nor more than two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) for a second or subsequent offense."
The business gets charged not the individual. It is the same as fining a company for a safety violation.
Sorry but Marshall Vs Barlow only deals with OSHA . Read the last paragraph: "The decision today renders presumptively invalid numerous inspection provisions in federal regulatory statutes. E. g., 30 U. S. C. 813 (Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969); 30 U. S. C. 723, 724 (Federal Metal and Nonmetallic Mine Safety Act); 21 U. S. C. 603 (inspection of meat and food products). That some of these provisions apply only to a single industry, as noted above, does not alter this fact. And the fact that some "envision resort to federal-court enforcement when entry is refused" is also irrelevant since the OSHA inspection program invalidated here requires compulsory process when a compliance inspector has been denied entry. The ruling was given because OSHA didn't even follow their own rules.
Does a health inspector need a warrant to search a restaurant or food plant? Does a BATF inspector need a warrant to search a distillery? Does a safety inspector need a warrant to search a manufacturing plant? In all these cases the answer is no. They can freely inspect commercial establishments to ensure the companies are following the law.
Equating this to random searches of houses is FUD. A random search of a private residence is against the Fourth Amendment. The statement by a couple of Sheriffs in Indiana, refuted by their Attorney General, is not evidence that random house to house searches are considered legal. It has never been tested in court and would in all likelihood be thrown out.
The Supreme Court case is also different in the following ways; 1. The police were in pursuit of a drug suspect. 2. The apartment smelled of drugs. A police officer made the connection between the drug suspect and the smell of drugs. 3. They knocked on the door identifying themselves as they are probably required to do. 4. They heard something that sounded like destruction of evidence (an illegal act). 5. They went in.
Should they have waited a half hour for a warrant while the suspect was in another apartment or getting away through another exit? Would they have enough manpower to cordon off every apartment that smelled of drugs? The stupid part about all this is that had the occupants been smart and just sat there the police would have had no "exigent circumstances" with which to enter. Another solution would have been for someone to come to the door and ask for a warrant. In this case the police are attempting to capture a suspected drug dealer in possession of illegal drugs and they had every indication that someone was attempting to destroy the evidence that were looking for. It is not a random search. That ruling is nowhere near as broad as the article is trying to make it.
My main issue with Solar Impulse is that it is not a solar powered aircraft but a sailplane with a solar powered assist. It uses stored electricity to get to altitude then uses standard sailplane techniques to get where it is going. You may call thermals and ridge lift (lift crated by wind being pushed up hill) solar power but it has nothing to do with solar panels. They probably use electricity to move from one area of lift to another but it is not the main source of energy. Considering that the sailplane distance record is almost 1000km, flying 500km with some electrical assist is not a great feat.
Why is the stated average speed of Solar Impulse 70km/hr but it took 12+hours to go 500km (average forward speed 42km/h). The reason is that they spend half their time using local lift instead of going forward.
I would like to see how far Solar Impulse would fly if it took off, set a course and flew straight until it ran out of electricity. That would be a valid comparison with today's fossil fuelled aircraft.
Actually I was partially incorrect. The current layout has four moving panels, two accordion sliding curtains, a fold down guest bed and a Murphy bed. I found a more informative video and Chang states that mathematically there are an infinite number of configuration (depending in exactly where the panels are) but around 20 usable configurations. This is probably true. The schematics of the previous designs are not explained and just confused me. I sure with the last picture of all 24 "rooms" was not so de-rezed that one can not read the captions for each configuration.
The apartment does not transform into 24 rooms or even 24 different configurations. Since 1976 the apartment has had 24 different layouts; each one created by a renovation and not sliding walls. The last layout is the one in the article and uses sliding walls and a Murphy bed to maximize space use. Take a look at the layouts you can make out. The bathroom fixtures in the 1989 layout are completely different in the 1998 layout. Changing the shape of a bathtub by moving walls would be a really great trick. How does the furniture disappear? In the 1976 layout there are 3 conventional beds while the 2006 layout has none.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry but you didn't read the article very well; "Renewable energies ... the main source of electricity in the country, With 32.3% in 2010." Only 32.3% was produced by renewable energy. It is the main source as the other sectors (natural gas, coal, oil, hydro, etc) do not individually produce more than that. Even the 32% is a statistical fallacy. They just lump all renewable sources into one category to make it look big. If all non-renewable sources were lumped together they would be the "main source".
You are correct that you could watch movies all day long. The pertinent fact is that most people don't. You also can't watch one move while your kid watches another while your wife watches another while you upload torrents to the web.
It is the same thing as landline usage. A business pays more for a landline phone than a household due to businesses having a higher usage. The higher usage requires more infrastructure and therefore costs more to support
Unlimited plans are available because carriers know that all the smart phones will not be accessing the net all the time. I doubt very much that many people will be watching movies or downloading torrents for hours at a time on a smartphone. If you get enough people doing this, as would happen if tethering was allowed, you would swamp the carrier network.
Yes the bits are the same but the usage pattern is much different between tethering and smartphone use. If you insist on tethering to unlimited plans say goodbye to unlimited plans. A tethers device can consume much more bandwidth than a smartphone.
PS to those who ask why pay for higher speed? Latency; a consumer wants to get information as fast as possible after pressing send. Smartphones are not receiving all the time but when they do speed is important.
Funny thing; the experiment was done by the University of Ghent and not a food company.
"Defenders agaust the selfish, and irresposible profit-seeking bio-companies" when those companies might prevent disasters like the Irish potato famine of 1740-1741. There are a lot of people on the planet and disease resistant crops are very important in feeding them.
Another issue is that it is up to food regulators to make reasonable rules to reign in irresponsible companies. An interesting point that the slanted report did not mention; the trial was done by the University of Ghent and not company.
Pressure needs to be applied globally to force *ALL* countries to support human rights, privacy, freedom of speech + movement, etc.!
Encourage? Yes. Lead by example? Yes. Assist with revolution? Yes. Force to change? No. It is up to the people of a sovereign country to decide what they want their country to be. It is not the place of another country to impose their views and morality on another country. That is merely war by another means.
Couldn't it be possible that the comet impacts created the water containing glass? A sufficiently large impact should melt some rock that may look lite it was brought up from inside the moon. The current theory is that water is deposited by comets; why not the glass too?
And paper books are never out of date, missing pages and take up such a small volume.
As for batteries running out I bet there will be a charger installed in the cockpit. If that charger dies that probably means the pilot has no electricity at all and reading a manual is the least of his concerns.
So all the court convictions of insider traders on the NYSE does not point to the fact that insider trading happens there? Just because the NYSE itself is not doing insider trading does not mean that the NYSE is not related to it. That would be like banning the picture of a gun involved in a murder because the gun manufacturer did not pull the trigger and does not want to be associated with murder.
I am not related in any way to paedophilia therefore I could sue for slander. The NYSE, where insider trading does occur, is related to the story. If the NYSE feels slandered then sue for slander; don't try to hide behind an unrelated law.
Trademark law is there to protect a trade mark from being used by someone else to advertise their similar product.The news report did not post a picture and attempt to pass it off as their trading floor. That is dilution of brand and therefore against trademark law. I can use a trademark any time I want as long as it refers to the owner of the trademark. For example, Pepsi can display Coke's Trademark if they are doing a comparison. They do not need a license to do it. I could also write an article about the use of high fructose corn syrup, display a Coke can and Coke could do nothing about it.
Great test of a system; Not. We have no idea if they actually placed the package in the correct area. "We test the system by sending a package" is not a study.
First it is completely different from a newspaper/reporter relationship (not just backassward). In the first case the reporter is creating a "work for hire" which is a well established principle. In the Doctors/patient case the patient is paying the doctor so "work for hire" does not apply.
There is also a huge loophole in the contract. A patient goes to a doctor and has an issue. The patient verbally tells a friend about the issue. The friend posts a review. There is no stipulation about verbal communication in the contract.
Unless you are producing novel, patentable ideas you are not indispensable; there is someone out there who can do your job. The "irreplaceable" attitude will bite you in the ass. When I hear someone say they are indispensable the phrase "pompous ass" comes to mind.
If you want a raise, make a case for it based on what you are doing now and how it is different that what you were doing before. If you were being underpaid before you need to make the case as to why you stayed.
For small business equity is a very complex issue. It is not like a small private company can just hand you some stock. They may need to make you a partner which is not simple. I you believe you should be a partner then make that case.
Write it down. You look more serious and organized. It allows you to look over your words and polish your presentation. It also allows your boss to re-read it and gain more clarity on your position.
The thing that many people do not understand about business is risk. Yes you contributed to the growth of the company but you did not risk your house, savings and credits rating to get there. What if things went bad? You could walk away but your boss could not. Since you are not the accountant, how do you know they are doing so well? You see the income but you don't see the outlay. There is a lot of overhead that goes into running a business; taxes, accounting, insurance, clerical staff, etc. You bosses may have taken out loans to start the business and they may not be paid off yet.
The reason the company must be separate is to make cost hiding much more difficult.
1. The technicians who work for the city IT department and are paid by the city IT budget but actually install and maintain the broadband infrastructure.
2. The accounting personnel paid by the city administration budget who actually spend most of their time dealing with broadband bills.
3. The consumables used used by the above personnel that are paid for by the city budget.
It is very easy to hide costs in a city budget. These hidden costs are paid for by every taxpayer and not just those who are paying the city for the broadband. Without being financially separate it is impossible to find out exactly how much money is being spent on the city broadband service.
Possibly because 95% of the spammers have tried other services but were only accepted by these three. If they were cut off by these three they might not be accepted by other vendors and their money would be cut off. Maybe the other 5% are just operating low volumes and under the radar.
Whenever approaching something new, one has expectations on how things will go. If the expectation is that new technology is "hard and complex" one's subconscious will work to make that true. Most elderly people are under the impression that technology=complex.
The statement that a user interface should be intuitive to someone with 0 experience is stupid. If someone has no experience working with something they will transfer experience from something similar. My advice to low experience users; read the manual.
I hate article like the one referred to; heavy on what is wrong and very light on what to do about it. It is very easy to point at issues but the magic is in solving them.
You might want to check the bill.
"21804. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any manufacturer of optical discs who violates this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be subject to a fine of not less than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) and not more than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for a first offense, and shall be subject to a fine of not less than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) nor more than two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) for a second or subsequent offense."
The business gets charged not the individual. It is the same as fining a company for a safety violation.
Any manufacturer also has to have a license to operate; it is called a business license.
A manufacturing plant is an ongoing business while a building renovation is not therefore the building permit comparison is invalid.
Are you concerned with the fact that an inspection is taking place or the people who are doing the inspection.
What most people in this discussion miss is that it is a business being inspected and not a private home.
Sorry but Marshall Vs Barlow only deals with OSHA . Read the last paragraph:
"The decision today renders presumptively invalid numerous inspection provisions in federal regulatory statutes. E. g., 30 U. S. C. 813 (Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969); 30 U. S. C. 723, 724 (Federal Metal and Nonmetallic Mine Safety Act); 21 U. S. C. 603 (inspection of meat and food products). That some of these provisions apply only to a single industry, as noted above, does not alter this fact. And the fact that some "envision resort to federal-court enforcement when entry is refused" is also irrelevant since the OSHA inspection program invalidated here requires compulsory process when a compliance inspector has been denied entry.
The ruling was given because OSHA didn't even follow their own rules.
The BATF can inspect at any time for compliance to laws and regulations, http://www.atf.gov/publications/factsheets/factsheet-ffl-compliance.html. They are not looking for safety issues and do not need a warrant.
Does a health inspector need a warrant to search a restaurant or food plant?
Does a BATF inspector need a warrant to search a distillery?
Does a safety inspector need a warrant to search a manufacturing plant?
In all these cases the answer is no. They can freely inspect commercial establishments to ensure the companies are following the law.
Equating this to random searches of houses is FUD. A random search of a private residence is against the Fourth Amendment. The statement by a couple of Sheriffs in Indiana, refuted by their Attorney General, is not evidence that random house to house searches are considered legal. It has never been tested in court and would in all likelihood be thrown out.
The Supreme Court case is also different in the following ways;
1. The police were in pursuit of a drug suspect.
2. The apartment smelled of drugs. A police officer made the connection between the drug suspect and the smell of drugs.
3. They knocked on the door identifying themselves as they are probably required to do.
4. They heard something that sounded like destruction of evidence (an illegal act).
5. They went in.
Should they have waited a half hour for a warrant while the suspect was in another apartment or getting away through another exit? Would they have enough manpower to cordon off every apartment that smelled of drugs? The stupid part about all this is that had the occupants been smart and just sat there the police would have had no "exigent circumstances" with which to enter. Another solution would have been for someone to come to the door and ask for a warrant. In this case the police are attempting to capture a suspected drug dealer in possession of illegal drugs and they had every indication that someone was attempting to destroy the evidence that were looking for. It is not a random search. That ruling is nowhere near as broad as the article is trying to make it.
My main issue with Solar Impulse is that it is not a solar powered aircraft but a sailplane with a solar powered assist. It uses stored electricity to get to altitude then uses standard sailplane techniques to get where it is going. You may call thermals and ridge lift (lift crated by wind being pushed up hill) solar power but it has nothing to do with solar panels. They probably use electricity to move from one area of lift to another but it is not the main source of energy. Considering that the sailplane distance record is almost 1000km, flying 500km with some electrical assist is not a great feat.
Why is the stated average speed of Solar Impulse 70km/hr but it took 12+hours to go 500km (average forward speed 42km/h). The reason is that they spend half their time using local lift instead of going forward.
I would like to see how far Solar Impulse would fly if it took off, set a course and flew straight until it ran out of electricity. That would be a valid comparison with today's fossil fuelled aircraft.
Actually I was partially incorrect. The current layout has four moving panels, two accordion sliding curtains, a fold down guest bed and a Murphy bed. I found a more informative video and Chang states that mathematically there are an infinite number of configuration (depending in exactly where the panels are) but around 20 usable configurations. This is probably true. The schematics of the previous designs are not explained and just confused me. I sure with the last picture of all 24 "rooms" was not so de-rezed that one can not read the captions for each configuration.
The test flight is supposed to happen tomorrow. Why not wait till there are results before posting an article?
The apartment does not transform into 24 rooms or even 24 different configurations. Since 1976 the apartment has had 24 different layouts; each one created by a renovation and not sliding walls. The last layout is the one in the article and uses sliding walls and a Murphy bed to maximize space use. Take a look at the layouts you can make out. The bathroom fixtures in the 1989 layout are completely different in the 1998 layout. Changing the shape of a bathtub by moving walls would be a really great trick. How does the furniture disappear? In the 1976 layout there are 3 conventional beds while the 2006 layout has none.