It shows you who wears the pants in that relationship.
In entrepreneurship type classes in business school they are very clear to have your own mergers and acquisitions lawyer to review terms and contracts, don't rely on the official lawyer who is really the VC's lawyer. In school they reinforce this idea with numerous stories like this slashdot posting. You can't prevent yourself from being dismissed but you can make sure you don't leave empty handed.
A corporation could have done it for $7 million of course they never would have because there is no money in it.
This procedure was medical research not regular medical care. $7 million is nothing for corporate medical research, a billion or more is spent researching a drug. Hundreds of millions are spent developing devices. Also once such a treatment becomes regular care it will probably be far less costly. I am not saying it may be easy to get, initially at least - in a century who knows, but I think you are not accurately representing the situation.
When you're talking about books being phased out in a few generations, nitpicking about current OCR is irrelevant. OCR technology will improve, industrial design will improve, and it probably won't take more than a decade before all of the "kinks" are worked out of digital literature. And at that point, new generations will be born into it. I think it is a given that digital text will overtake print; it is merely a question of how long.
I don't think improvements in OCR (incidentally an area that I have worked in) will necessarily improve the existing flawed books. They could update the text simply with the reported typos from readers. Or they could have another professional proofreading pass. Yet these things do not happen so I doubt they will rescan and proofread these works. The bulk of sales are from newer works that were created in a digital media and need no OCR. The older works are low volume and get little attention from publishers, the publishers believe their work is done and have little incentive to revisit it.
Older books (as in pre-word processor) on Kindle (not singling out Amazon, I'm sure iBooks and other digital stores share the same problems) are flawed. I've read a bunch of reviews of older books and there are common complaints regarding frequent typos from OCR.
You're doing it wrong. You should download old books from Gutenberg directly. They're available in multiple formats, including Mobi for Kindle, and they're generally high quality and well-edited (even when they start from OCR sources). There's no reason to get old books from Amazon, and especially no reason to ever pay for those old books. That's how people scam -- grab a bunch of Gutenberg books, rip off the Gutenberg text, add a fancy new cover, and charge $2 on Amazon and other stores. Easiest money ever, because there are suckers like you who will pay for it.
By old books I am not referring to classical literature that is a century or more beyond copyright. I have downloaded such works for both Kindle and iBooks and they are also free. When I purchase such works on paper I tend to get academic oriented printing that add much additional material. For example my copies of the Iliad and Odyssey includes an extensive discussion on whether Homer was an individual person or if his works are from a series of authors spread through time.
By old I was simply referring to something that was created before people moved to word-processors and where the author's original work was not done in a digital media. Perhaps Frank Herbert's Dune (1965?) is a good example.
Young growing trees are air scrubbers. My understanding is that once fully grown there is a significant drop-off. That would suggest that wood based products are green. Assuming of course the harvesting and replanting are done in a reasonable manner. Also look at books as a carbon sequestration device.:-)
Until they clear cut (with diesel bulldozers and tree pullers)
and raze the remaining brush... thus UNSEQUESTERING
the carbon =)
That is why I wrote "Assuming of course the harvesting and replanting are done in a reasonable manner"
Also if you want to consider externalities then perhaps you should also consider:
"Environmental benefits of lumber
Green building minimizes the impact or “environmental footprint” of a building. Wood is the only major building material that is renewable and uses the sun’s energy to renew itself in a continuous sustainable cycle. Studies show manufacturing wood uses less energy and results in less air and water pollution than steel and concrete." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumber#Environmental_benefits_of_lumber
Young growing trees are air scrubbers. My understanding is that once fully grown there is a significant drop-off. That would suggest that wood based products are green. Assuming of course the harvesting and replanting are done in a reasonable manner. Also look at books as a carbon sequestration device.:-)
Older books (as in pre-word processor) on Kindle (not singling out Amazon, I'm sure iBooks and other digital stores share the same problems) are flawed. I've read a bunch of reviews of older books and there are common complaints regarding frequent typos from OCR. I am far more comfortable purchasing things written in more recent times in a digital format. That said, I confess an act of defiance in that I will not purchase the digital version unless it costs less so I still occasionally purchase paper.
Actually bandwidth is still key. The bandwidth we have today is based on the premise that we will not need it "too often". This presumption is "guaranteed" by the data caps.
Funny that some companies can provide 10Mbit service (REAL 10Mbit service, even during primetime) with no caps, while others are crying the "we need to cap" line that you just spat at me even when their best-of-the-best plan is 3Mbit for the same price that I am paying.
It all depends on the ratio of capacity to customers. Given an ISP with a proportionally small number of customers relative to their bandwidth they can manage that, however when the customer base gets proportionally too large that is no longer feasible. Just because you can find a case that fits your ideal does not mean that their situation can be universally applied, the underlying contexts must also be the same.
You prevent a user from hogging all the bandwidth by not giving him all the bandwidth. That has nothing to do with data caps. You seem to be arguing a red herring. There are speed limits in place even without caps. Regardless of how finite the resource is, a user can only utilize at most a predetermined finite fraction of it with our without metering.
Actually bandwidth is still key. The bandwidth we have today is based on the premise that we will not need it "too often". This presumption is "guaranteed" by the data caps. If there were not some sort of data cap to prevent "over use" then the ISPs would simply make the bandwidth we receive much less. Bandwidth is not a red herring, it is the foundation of everything network based. Data transmitted is just a convenient proxy for bandwidth given intermittent use.
And please tell me this.....
How is Apples Magical Cloud going to sync your iPhone to your PC when you are out and about and need some new tunes???
Remember you said its not over the net.
I said it will not be *streaming* music over the net, that it would be synching. With streaming the music is not stored locally and every time you listen to a song it must be delivered from the cloud or some other net-based source. With synching the device has local storage and a song only needs to be delivered once, playing the song generates no additional network traffic. iCloud only does synching, unlike other music services that are streaming based. My point is that synching based services are far less vulnerable to data caps than streaming based services.
Capped data is a joke. It's a movement towards charging per-unit prices for a service that has no meaningful per-unit cost. Sure, it costs money to build a network, blah blah blah. But there is no fixed cost for moving data around...
You got that mixed up. The network infrastructure is a fixed cost, you seem to be thinking of variable costs. Fixed costs are those that largely occur regardless of consumption, variable costs are tied to consumption in a more direct way. There are also a type of fixed costs know as sunk costs, costs that are not recoverable in any significant way, and often a one time cost. The network infrastructure is a fixed and sunk cost. However another fixed cost that is ongoing is labor. Even after that infrastructure is paid for the labor costs will persist. It would also be realistic to consider that once the infrastructure is paid for it probably needs to be upgraded, so there is a new fixed and sunk cost.
... A Gbit switch costs about as much as a 100 Mbit switch did a few years back, and moves 100x as much data in a unit of time as the 100 Mbit one. It uses about the same amount of electricity, regardless of how much data is being moved. Where did that per-unit cost go?...
Lets ignore the cost of the switch upgrade. Did labor costs go down? Does rent on the building that housed the equipment go down? Do the costs of power and air conditioning go down? Did the interest on the loans used to buy the equipment go down? Did the fees for those big data pipes coming into the building go down?
... Because of this, I figure it's only a matter of time before this whole "cap the user" nonsense goes away.
Bandwidth to your neighborhood is fixed. How do you allocate a finite shared resource? How do you prevent one person from hogging the bandwidth? Currently fees are used to allocate the resource, what is your alternative?
Actually Apple's iCloud may be another solution. It will not be streaming my music over the net, it will be synching music files between various devices. Comparably that requires far less data. A cloud that is merely used for file storage and synching may not be endangered.
I take it you've never worked in an organization that worked something like this:
Manager: "I need a perfect solution to the Traveling Salesman Problem - I just signed a 7-figure contract saying we'd provide that in 2 weeks."
IT: "There's no way to do this, we've got lots of papers and well-known theory that proves that this is a problem the best mathematical and scientific minds that have ever existed in the last 50 years aren't able to solve."
Manager: "Just get it done, ok? Look, there's a lot of money riding on this."
2 weeks later...
Manager: "So where's that Traveling Salesman Problem solution I asked for?"
IT: "It's not ready yet. As I previously mentioned, it's a virtual impossibility." ...
Correction:
IT:"Here it is. Also given the number of locations to visit here are the expected times to provide an answer. We can improve these times to a small degree if you authorize additional hardware for the project, but there are diminishing returns.
We've also implemented an alternate solution for these situations with a large number of locations. The answers are pretty good but not perfect."
Yes a silly example but it was your analogy not mine.:-)
That said, do you get the concept that others have mentioned? Rather than an IT organization that looks for technical reasons to say "no" you have an IT organization that starts with the business need and delivers a reasonable solution. Your taking the Pentagon subcontractor sort of approach: it doesn't matter if the plane flies all that matters is that the plane meets the Air Force specification. That is not how a good IT department operates.
California has destroyed my faith in direct democracy.
California has accomplished more than that, it has also destroyed the faith in representative democracy as well. The silliness of the public is exceeded by the stupidity of the state legislature.
Actually making use of technology to drive government.
This seems to be a survey, not a vote. So it is pretty much what occasionally happens in the US too. Suveys and focus groups are used to get feedback and to craft legislation and/or how the legislation is presented.
I believe the only way a true democracy can be run is if individual citizens are allowed to vote on legislation proposed by their representatives, rather than having the representatives do the voting. It would encourage the reps to actually engage their voting populations, otherwise their legislation dies.
Many wise men have characterized such a system as mob rule. Legislators would simply pander to the mob, its not terribly different than what happens today. Why are the NRA and AARP so powerful, its not money, its their ability to deliver voters to the polls. In short big money donors may have less influence but special interest groups will gain influence.
The real solution is to elect representatives that have intelligence, ethics and character. An extreme example from history, Cincinnatus:
"... an invasion caused him to be called to serve Rome as dictator, an office which he immediately resigned after completing his task of defeating the rivaling tribes of the Aequians, Sabines and Volscians.
His abandoning of his work to serve Rome, and especially his immediate resignation of his absolute authority with the end of the crisis, has often been cited as an example of outstanding leadership, service to the greater good, civic virtue, and modesty" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus
I reviewed this thread to make sure I was not getting you mixed up with another poster.
This would be the first time you've said I've portrayed your opinion incorrectly
I wrote: "Say 100+ people in a fragile machine, surround by flammable liquids, moving at a high rate of speed and doing so with limited to no visibility outside the machine having a "mishap" because someone had to check twitter? There are some activities where an excess of caution is warranted, personally I believe that needing to use an ***instrument landing system because of bad weather*** is one such activity."
You responded: "And you say "Screw the science - anecdotal is good enough - cause it is dangerous!""
That is an inaccurate portrayal of "there are some activities where an excess of caution is warranted".
I stated my opinion is: "... cost-benefit analysis. When a highly unlikely event is paired with an extremely high cost, especially hundreds of human lives, then the benefit must be something non-trivial."
You characterized my opinion as: "After all, you have been arguing that anecdotal stories trump scientific studies."
You have clearly NOT said that it "added to the flight crew workload for no benefit."
I wrote: "Your kindle should be stowed during takeoff because the flight crew should not bear the responsibility of recognizing which devices emit and which do not. Note that a device comparable to your kindle, an iPad, was found to be the worst offender with respect to emissions. Furthermore, the flight crew should not take the owners word on what emits and what does not and the flight crew should not have to deal with passengers who are annoyed that someone else gets to keep their device while they have to stow theirs."
You have repeatedly compared the "trivial use" of a banned electronic device (which includes the Kindle) should not be allowed because it may endanger everyone.
That is a distorted and self serving interpretation of:
"... cost-benefit analysis. When a highly unlikely event is paired with an extremely high cost, especially hundreds of human lives, then the benefit must be something non-trivial"
As an example of a non-trivial use I offered driving a car despite the hypothetical reports of antilock braking problems you offered in an analogy.
Regarding the Kindle, I also pointed out how it resembles the iPad which Boeing identified as the worst offending device in their laboratory test - and the complication of requiring flight crews to know all the various devices on the market.
And I've argued from the beginning that anecdotal stories do not trump scientific studies, which has always clearly been my point - so why are you even responding to me?
I've argued against your false portrayal of my opinion. I'm not quite sure why you keep bringing up the anecdote vs science red herring.
Device certification, for example, would handle the issue.
OK, your Kindle is not certified so put it away.:-)
I still, by the way, say that my right to read a friggin' book is more important than your right to exercise your unreasonable fear.
Intentionally misrepresenting my opinion does not really enhance your argument. I did not say I feared your kindle. I said it added to the flight crew workload for no real benefit. You can read between take off and landing. We all make trivial accommodations during takeoff and landing for the comfort and safety of each other and the efficiency of the flight crew.
If you are going to change your argument so that you agree with mine, can you just admit it so we can all go on? After all, you have been arguing that anecdotal stories trump scientific studies.
Wrong. I have *never* said anecdotal stories trump scientific studies. I started the discussion with a cost-benefit type argument, that the trivial unnecessary benefit of using a personal device during landing is not warranted given the extremely high cost (100+ human lives) of a possible accident. Basically that even though the likelihood of such an event is extremely unlikely the trivial nature of the benefit suggests forgoing the benefit.
I believe any support I gave anecdotal stories was in the context of reports of F16 pilots who reported instrumentation problems, problems that inspections and testing were unable to confirm. Several F16 pilots died before cables rubbing on a rivet were found to create intermittent electrical shorts. None of this suggests anecdotal stories trumps scientific studies, it does however suggest that observations of highly trained and educated observers such as professional pilots should not be dismissed as readily as an observation by grandma that her car did something funny.
... my inability to use a Kindle during takeoff, when the Kindle has zero emissions during use, because you are scared because some guy told you a story...
An uninformed guess on your part. Your kindle should be stowed during takeoff because the flight crew should not bear the responsibility of recognizing which devices emit and which do not. Note that a device comparable to your kindle, an iPad, was found to be the worst offender with respect to emissions. Furthermore, the flight crew should not take the owners word on what emits and what does not and the flight crew should not have to deal with passengers who are annoyed that someone else gets to keep their device while they have to stow theirs. Like my original argument, the trivial unnecessary benefit you experience from using your kindle during takeoff does not warrant the additional workload you will cause the flight crew.
The problem is *not* control of the aircraft, ie the failure is not the fly-by-wire control system, the problem is in the ground to aircraft signaling system that is indicating where the runway is
This, for instance, makes absolutely zero sense and makes you look like an idiot (I'm talking about landing in the clear on manual control, which has zero to do with the ILS knowing your position, which is what makes it a goddamn test in the first place) without your later statement:
Sigh. The ILS issue was mentioned in the summary, in the article, etc. You didn't understand the issue and introduced your "non-computer hydraulics" meme which is irrelevant to the ILS issue being discussed. No one is following you off on that erroneous tangent.
they *require* computers making hundreds of microcorrections on control surfaces per second to maintain stable flight.
In fact, without that, your entire discussion seems completely off the rails, and unless I'm mistaken, you haven't made it before.
Oh no, you are mistaken. As you failed to understand the actual nature of the ILS issue you also failed to understand the underlying nature of phrases like "uncontrollable by human pilots".
Now, my halfassed knowledge of physics and above-average knowledge of flight...
LMAO.
What I'm discussing first and foremost is policy, and I don't think I've deviated from the start. They've known this was potentially an issue for a decade or more.
And what you are ignoring is *new* evidence. For example the Boeing tests identifying the iPad as the device generating the greatest emissions beyond acceptable levels. A decade or more ago devices had less impact. And they have been addressing it in new designs of aircraft and avionics still on the drawing boards, well in the CAD/CAM systems. The problem is with the existing fleet out there. Turning off devices is a quite reasonable policy for the existing fleet.
... I've been beating you over the head with the statement, "We can test it,"...
Given the variety of aircraft and avionics systems out there, and the fact that catastrophic failures are often the result of multiple problems working in concert, I don't think you fully comprehend what would need to be tested in the context of the current fleet.
... because your argument boils down to, "Let's just keep implementing a stopgap measure as a matter of policy, indefinitely.
Not at all. Current designs under development are addressing the issue. However that does not address the reality of the day that travelers today are boarding aircraft designed decades ago. Add to this the ground based systems, like ILS, that were also designed decades ago. A lot of ground based infrastructure needs to have more modern designs as well.
You can even make a plane to fly by actual, non-computer hydraulics in case of emergencies. If you did that, there would be absolutely zero of this "demonstrated signals over the acceptable limit" bullshit. They would fly a demonstration and say, "Here's the point at which the controls stop working and the plane starts to crash," or "Here's the point at which the ILS goes wonky, which means that in inclement weather, there's a 100% chance of death." And then they'd actually land the plane anyway,
Uhh, do you know how instrument landings systems work? The problem is not the fly-by-wire nature of the aircraft, the problem is that the pilot can not see the runway and is relying on ground signals and onboard instruments to get him to the runway, perhaps even have the autopilot land. One area being investigated is if the emissions by onboard devices can degrade or otherwise introduce an error into those ground signals.
You do not test an ILS system by having no other way to land. You test it by pretending you need it, but being ready to land without it.
Whether the instrument landing is practice, testing or operational your suggestion of an alternative hydraulic system is nonsense. The problem is *not* control of the aircraft, ie the failure is not the fly-by-wire control system, the problem is in the ground to aircraft signaling system that is indicating where the runway is.
You are consistently demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the problem.
Fantasy, current designs do not offer that ability and it is not possible in some cases. Some modern fly-by-wire aircraft are in fact uncontrollable by human pilots.
You're quibbling. There are ways to make a secondary flight methods which are not going to be affected by RF of any reasonable intensity or frequency.
Quibbling? Your laughable. I repeat, some aircraft are not controllable by humans, they *require* computers making hundreds of microcorrections on control surfaces per second to maintain stable flight. Your "non-computer hydraulics" can't manage this.
Why are you assuming it was within the safety margin?
The lack of a mass, frothing, screaming panic by the engineers involved tips me off. Airlines may be less profitable than they were, but it's a huge industry that millions of people depend on for all their not-dying-a-flaming-death needs. If electronic devices were, all of a sudden, completely out of the safety margins, there would be a lot of very technically knowledgeable people who would be very scared about the implications. Instead, we have a f***ing press conference where they mention that some random-seeming problems that so far haven't caused much damage might be related to electronic radiation.
You can attempt to divert attention by referring to the anecdotal reports by flight crews all you want, but the motivation of this article was testing done in Boeing laboratories that does show modern devices exceeding safe emissions levels. The technically knowledgable people are starting to show concern and they are offering actual evidence. You can continue to talk about other things but this fact remains.
That is exactly the issue to me. The fact that we have an extremely low probability but exceptionally high cost event paired with a trivial unnecessary benefit is the foundation of my opinion.
I have two main objections to this. One, you're saying that the design of the plane only vaguely factors into the situation, becoming a part of the "probability" of the event. Either there is, in fact, a vulnerability in the design, or not.
Quite the contrary. The design of the *various* planes and avionic systems are a factor, one that greatly complicates the fanciful ideas of testing you propose. We have per
And I'm sure he used some interesting and impressive hacks to trick the iphone into wirelessly syncing.
Well **IF** he went the undocumented API route then there would be no conspiracy regarding the app rejection. Undocumented APIs are an automatic rejection, it may even be part of the automated prescreening process -- completely automated, no human judgement call.
As you say, any actual risk does not have to be demonstrated, just an irrational fear needs to be invoked with sufficient sensationalism.
Actually a risk has been demonstrated by Boeing, various current devices with emissions beyond what is considered acceptable. Those referring merely to anecdotes from flight crews must not have actually read the article, in other words they are relying on anecdotes rather than scientific results.
You also mischaracterize my argument. My argument is from a cost-benefit analysis perspective. If we have an extremely low probability but extraordinarily high cost (100+ human lives) event paired with a trivial unnecessary benefit then a rational decision would be to forgo the benefit (personal device during landing). Your "proven conclusively its unsafe" approach would only be appropriate if we were discussing a benefit of substantial value, which we are not.
This is what I don't understand. With all the discussions over this, how has this not been fully tested and answered? How can we not have a definitive answer by now? And if it has been answered, why it is still being debated?
Personal devices are evolving rapidly. There is no finishing point for testing, no definitive answer. In the article you will find that Boeing has identified devices that exceed acceptable emissions levels, the worst offender was an iPad. Tests from several years ago are obsolete.
In general, the policy of leaning on the safe side is a good thing. That's not at all the issue.
That is exactly the issue to me. The fact that we have an extremely low probability but exceptionally high cost event paired with a trivial unnecessary benefit is the foundation of my opinion.
The technology exists, and methods exist, to actually find and shut off equipment were it actually a danger. The fact that they haven't implemented those procedures means the airlines don't ACTUALLY consider it a threat.
That is a leap of faith.
If there were noticeable differences when passenger electronics were on, it would have been EXCEPTIONALLY clear.
Another leap of faith. Catastrophic failures do not always have a single direct linear cause. Sometimes several minor problems interact in unexpected ways to cause the catastrophe. For example F16 instrumentation went through extensive testing on the ground and in the air. Reports of problems from pilots lead to inspections and further testing. Eventually it was found that wires chaffing against a rivet wore through insulation and caused intermittent shorts in flight, leading to incorrect instrument readings. With respect to personal devices perhaps RF shielding is being damaged/degraded in flight, or something else unexpected is happening, that makes actual flight operations different than laboratory testing.
Speaking of laboratory testing, the Boeing test stated the an iPad was the worst offender with respect to emission beyond acceptable levels. This points out another problem with your argument. Our personal devices are rapidly evolving. Testing and experience from 5 or 10 years ago may not be very relevant today.
1) If you know anything about aircraft engineering, or really any of the higher kinds of engineering, they set the acceptable limit well below the position where things can go wrong. There are many, many reasons for that.
I don't recall the article telling us how far over the limit that iPad went. Why are you assuming it was within the safety margin? Why are you implying that safety margins are unnecessary, they exist for a good reason - mostly as an acceptance of the limitations of our design assumptions and testing methodologies.
2) I don't think you understand what I'm saying. There are runways out in the middle of the desert that you can make practice landings and takeoffs at all day, every day, for months. You can have a full complement of mock passengers in the back with phones on, off, or indifferent....
Fantasy, its not being done. Also consider how extensively F16s were used, inspected and maintained before the unexpected set of circumstances necessary for its failure were found.
... You can even make a plane to fly by actual, non-computer hydraulics in case of emergencies...
Fantasy, current designs do not offer that ability and it is not possible in some cases. Some modern fly-by-wire aircraft are in fact uncontrollable by human pilots.
... "Here's the point at which the ILS goes wonky, which means that in inclement weather, there's a 100% chance of death." And then they'd actually land the plane anyway...
Uhh, do you know how instrument landings systems work? The problem is not the fly-by-wire nature of the aircraft, the problem is that the pilot can not see the runway and is relying on ground signals and onboard instruments to get him to the runway, perhaps even have the autopilot land. One area being investigated is if the emissions by onboard devices can degrade or otherwise introduce an error into those ground signals.
Slashdot Mirror
It shows you who wears the pants in that relationship.
In entrepreneurship type classes in business school they are very clear to have your own mergers and acquisitions lawyer to review terms and contracts, don't rely on the official lawyer who is really the VC's lawyer. In school they reinforce this idea with numerous stories like this slashdot posting. You can't prevent yourself from being dismissed but you can make sure you don't leave empty handed.
A corporation could have done it for $7 million of course they never would have because there is no money in it.
This procedure was medical research not regular medical care. $7 million is nothing for corporate medical research, a billion or more is spent researching a drug. Hundreds of millions are spent developing devices. Also once such a treatment becomes regular care it will probably be far less costly. I am not saying it may be easy to get, initially at least - in a century who knows, but I think you are not accurately representing the situation.
When you're talking about books being phased out in a few generations, nitpicking about current OCR is irrelevant. OCR technology will improve, industrial design will improve, and it probably won't take more than a decade before all of the "kinks" are worked out of digital literature. And at that point, new generations will be born into it. I think it is a given that digital text will overtake print; it is merely a question of how long.
I don't think improvements in OCR (incidentally an area that I have worked in) will necessarily improve the existing flawed books. They could update the text simply with the reported typos from readers. Or they could have another professional proofreading pass. Yet these things do not happen so I doubt they will rescan and proofread these works. The bulk of sales are from newer works that were created in a digital media and need no OCR. The older works are low volume and get little attention from publishers, the publishers believe their work is done and have little incentive to revisit it.
You're doing it wrong. You should download old books from Gutenberg directly. They're available in multiple formats, including Mobi for Kindle, and they're generally high quality and well-edited (even when they start from OCR sources). There's no reason to get old books from Amazon, and especially no reason to ever pay for those old books. That's how people scam -- grab a bunch of Gutenberg books, rip off the Gutenberg text, add a fancy new cover, and charge $2 on Amazon and other stores. Easiest money ever, because there are suckers like you who will pay for it.
By old books I am not referring to classical literature that is a century or more beyond copyright. I have downloaded such works for both Kindle and iBooks and they are also free. When I purchase such works on paper I tend to get academic oriented printing that add much additional material. For example my copies of the Iliad and Odyssey includes an extensive discussion on whether Homer was an individual person or if his works are from a series of authors spread through time.
By old I was simply referring to something that was created before people moved to word-processors and where the author's original work was not done in a digital media. Perhaps Frank Herbert's Dune (1965?) is a good example.
Trees are part of our air scrubbers...
Young growing trees are air scrubbers. My understanding is that once fully grown there is a significant drop-off. That would suggest that wood based products are green. Assuming of course the harvesting and replanting are done in a reasonable manner. Also look at books as a carbon sequestration device. :-)
Until they clear cut (with diesel bulldozers and tree pullers) and raze the remaining brush... thus UNSEQUESTERING the carbon =)
That is why I wrote "Assuming of course the harvesting and replanting are done in a reasonable manner"
Also if you want to consider externalities then perhaps you should also consider:
"Environmental benefits of lumber
Green building minimizes the impact or “environmental footprint” of a building. Wood is the only major building material that is renewable and uses the sun’s energy to renew itself in a continuous sustainable cycle. Studies show manufacturing wood uses less energy and results in less air and water pollution than steel and concrete."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumber#Environmental_benefits_of_lumber
Trees are part of our air scrubbers...
Young growing trees are air scrubbers. My understanding is that once fully grown there is a significant drop-off. That would suggest that wood based products are green. Assuming of course the harvesting and replanting are done in a reasonable manner. Also look at books as a carbon sequestration device. :-)
Older books (as in pre-word processor) on Kindle (not singling out Amazon, I'm sure iBooks and other digital stores share the same problems) are flawed. I've read a bunch of reviews of older books and there are common complaints regarding frequent typos from OCR. I am far more comfortable purchasing things written in more recent times in a digital format. That said, I confess an act of defiance in that I will not purchase the digital version unless it costs less so I still occasionally purchase paper.
Actually bandwidth is still key. The bandwidth we have today is based on the premise that we will not need it "too often". This presumption is "guaranteed" by the data caps.
Funny that some companies can provide 10Mbit service (REAL 10Mbit service, even during primetime) with no caps, while others are crying the "we need to cap" line that you just spat at me even when their best-of-the-best plan is 3Mbit for the same price that I am paying.
It all depends on the ratio of capacity to customers. Given an ISP with a proportionally small number of customers relative to their bandwidth they can manage that, however when the customer base gets proportionally too large that is no longer feasible. Just because you can find a case that fits your ideal does not mean that their situation can be universally applied, the underlying contexts must also be the same.
You prevent a user from hogging all the bandwidth by not giving him all the bandwidth. That has nothing to do with data caps. You seem to be arguing a red herring. There are speed limits in place even without caps. Regardless of how finite the resource is, a user can only utilize at most a predetermined finite fraction of it with our without metering.
Actually bandwidth is still key. The bandwidth we have today is based on the premise that we will not need it "too often". This presumption is "guaranteed" by the data caps. If there were not some sort of data cap to prevent "over use" then the ISPs would simply make the bandwidth we receive much less. Bandwidth is not a red herring, it is the foundation of everything network based. Data transmitted is just a convenient proxy for bandwidth given intermittent use.
And please tell me this..... How is Apples Magical Cloud going to sync your iPhone to your PC when you are out and about and need some new tunes??? Remember you said its not over the net.
I said it will not be *streaming* music over the net, that it would be synching. With streaming the music is not stored locally and every time you listen to a song it must be delivered from the cloud or some other net-based source. With synching the device has local storage and a song only needs to be delivered once, playing the song generates no additional network traffic. iCloud only does synching, unlike other music services that are streaming based. My point is that synching based services are far less vulnerable to data caps than streaming based services.
Capped data is a joke. It's a movement towards charging per-unit prices for a service that has no meaningful per-unit cost. Sure, it costs money to build a network, blah blah blah. But there is no fixed cost for moving data around...
You got that mixed up. The network infrastructure is a fixed cost, you seem to be thinking of variable costs. Fixed costs are those that largely occur regardless of consumption, variable costs are tied to consumption in a more direct way. There are also a type of fixed costs know as sunk costs, costs that are not recoverable in any significant way, and often a one time cost. The network infrastructure is a fixed and sunk cost. However another fixed cost that is ongoing is labor. Even after that infrastructure is paid for the labor costs will persist. It would also be realistic to consider that once the infrastructure is paid for it probably needs to be upgraded, so there is a new fixed and sunk cost.
... A Gbit switch costs about as much as a 100 Mbit switch did a few years back, and moves 100x as much data in a unit of time as the 100 Mbit one. It uses about the same amount of electricity, regardless of how much data is being moved. Where did that per-unit cost go? ...
Lets ignore the cost of the switch upgrade. Did labor costs go down? Does rent on the building that housed the equipment go down? Do the costs of power and air conditioning go down? Did the interest on the loans used to buy the equipment go down? Did the fees for those big data pipes coming into the building go down?
... Because of this, I figure it's only a matter of time before this whole "cap the user" nonsense goes away.
Bandwidth to your neighborhood is fixed. How do you allocate a finite shared resource? How do you prevent one person from hogging the bandwidth? Currently fees are used to allocate the resource, what is your alternative?
Actually Apple's iCloud may be another solution. It will not be streaming my music over the net, it will be synching music files between various devices. Comparably that requires far less data. A cloud that is merely used for file storage and synching may not be endangered.
I take it you've never worked in an organization that worked something like this:
Manager: "I need a perfect solution to the Traveling Salesman Problem - I just signed a 7-figure contract saying we'd provide that in 2 weeks."
IT: "There's no way to do this, we've got lots of papers and well-known theory that proves that this is a problem the best mathematical and scientific minds that have ever existed in the last 50 years aren't able to solve."
Manager: "Just get it done, ok? Look, there's a lot of money riding on this."
2 weeks later ...
...
Manager: "So where's that Traveling Salesman Problem solution I asked for?"
IT: "It's not ready yet. As I previously mentioned, it's a virtual impossibility."
Correction:
:-)
IT:"Here it is. Also given the number of locations to visit here are the expected times to provide an answer. We can improve these times to a small degree if you authorize additional hardware for the project, but there are diminishing returns.
We've also implemented an alternate solution for these situations with a large number of locations. The answers are pretty good but not perfect."
Yes a silly example but it was your analogy not mine.
That said, do you get the concept that others have mentioned? Rather than an IT organization that looks for technical reasons to say "no" you have an IT organization that starts with the business need and delivers a reasonable solution. Your taking the Pentagon subcontractor sort of approach: it doesn't matter if the plane flies all that matters is that the plane meets the Air Force specification. That is not how a good IT department operates.
California has destroyed my faith in direct democracy.
California has accomplished more than that, it has also destroyed the faith in representative democracy as well. The silliness of the public is exceeded by the stupidity of the state legislature.
Actually making use of technology to drive government.
This seems to be a survey, not a vote. So it is pretty much what occasionally happens in the US too. Suveys and focus groups are used to get feedback and to craft legislation and/or how the legislation is presented.
I believe the only way a true democracy can be run is if individual citizens are allowed to vote on legislation proposed by their representatives, rather than having the representatives do the voting. It would encourage the reps to actually engage their voting populations, otherwise their legislation dies.
Many wise men have characterized such a system as mob rule. Legislators would simply pander to the mob, its not terribly different than what happens today. Why are the NRA and AARP so powerful, its not money, its their ability to deliver voters to the polls. In short big money donors may have less influence but special interest groups will gain influence.
The real solution is to elect representatives that have intelligence, ethics and character. An extreme example from history, Cincinnatus:
"... an invasion caused him to be called to serve Rome as dictator, an office which he immediately resigned after completing his task of defeating the rivaling tribes of the Aequians, Sabines and Volscians. His abandoning of his work to serve Rome, and especially his immediate resignation of his absolute authority with the end of the crisis, has often been cited as an example of outstanding leadership, service to the greater good, civic virtue, and modesty"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus
This would be the first time you've said I've portrayed your opinion incorrectly
I wrote: "Say 100+ people in a fragile machine, surround by flammable liquids, moving at a high rate of speed and doing so with limited to no visibility outside the machine having a "mishap" because someone had to check twitter? There are some activities where an excess of caution is warranted, personally I believe that needing to use an ***instrument landing system because of bad weather*** is one such activity."
You responded: "And you say "Screw the science - anecdotal is good enough - cause it is dangerous!""
That is an inaccurate portrayal of "there are some activities where an excess of caution is warranted".
I stated my opinion is: "... cost-benefit analysis. When a highly unlikely event is paired with an extremely high cost, especially hundreds of human lives, then the benefit must be something non-trivial."
You characterized my opinion as: "After all, you have been arguing that anecdotal stories trump scientific studies."
You have clearly NOT said that it "added to the flight crew workload for no benefit."
I wrote: "Your kindle should be stowed during takeoff because the flight crew should not bear the responsibility of recognizing which devices emit and which do not. Note that a device comparable to your kindle, an iPad, was found to be the worst offender with respect to emissions. Furthermore, the flight crew should not take the owners word on what emits and what does not and the flight crew should not have to deal with passengers who are annoyed that someone else gets to keep their device while they have to stow theirs."
You have repeatedly compared the "trivial use" of a banned electronic device (which includes the Kindle) should not be allowed because it may endanger everyone.
That is a distorted and self serving interpretation of:
"... cost-benefit analysis. When a highly unlikely event is paired with an extremely high cost, especially hundreds of human lives, then the benefit must be something non-trivial"
As an example of a non-trivial use I offered driving a car despite the hypothetical reports of antilock braking problems you offered in an analogy.
Regarding the Kindle, I also pointed out how it resembles the iPad which Boeing identified as the worst offending device in their laboratory test - and the complication of requiring flight crews to know all the various devices on the market.
And I've argued from the beginning that anecdotal stories do not trump scientific studies, which has always clearly been my point - so why are you even responding to me?
I've argued against your false portrayal of my opinion. I'm not quite sure why you keep bringing up the anecdote vs science red herring.
Device certification, for example, would handle the issue.
OK, your Kindle is not certified so put it away. :-)
I still, by the way, say that my right to read a friggin' book is more important than your right to exercise your unreasonable fear.
Intentionally misrepresenting my opinion does not really enhance your argument. I did not say I feared your kindle. I said it added to the flight crew workload for no real benefit. You can read between take off and landing. We all make trivial accommodations during takeoff and landing for the comfort and safety of each other and the efficiency of the flight crew.
If you are going to change your argument so that you agree with mine, can you just admit it so we can all go on? After all, you have been arguing that anecdotal stories trump scientific studies.
Wrong. I have *never* said anecdotal stories trump scientific studies. I started the discussion with a cost-benefit type argument, that the trivial unnecessary benefit of using a personal device during landing is not warranted given the extremely high cost (100+ human lives) of a possible accident. Basically that even though the likelihood of such an event is extremely unlikely the trivial nature of the benefit suggests forgoing the benefit.
I believe any support I gave anecdotal stories was in the context of reports of F16 pilots who reported instrumentation problems, problems that inspections and testing were unable to confirm. Several F16 pilots died before cables rubbing on a rivet were found to create intermittent electrical shorts. None of this suggests anecdotal stories trumps scientific studies, it does however suggest that observations of highly trained and educated observers such as professional pilots should not be dismissed as readily as an observation by grandma that her car did something funny.
... my inability to use a Kindle during takeoff, when the Kindle has zero emissions during use, because you are scared because some guy told you a story ...
An uninformed guess on your part. Your kindle should be stowed during takeoff because the flight crew should not bear the responsibility of recognizing which devices emit and which do not. Note that a device comparable to your kindle, an iPad, was found to be the worst offender with respect to emissions. Furthermore, the flight crew should not take the owners word on what emits and what does not and the flight crew should not have to deal with passengers who are annoyed that someone else gets to keep their device while they have to stow theirs. Like my original argument, the trivial unnecessary benefit you experience from using your kindle during takeoff does not warrant the additional workload you will cause the flight crew.
The problem is *not* control of the aircraft, ie the failure is not the fly-by-wire control system, the problem is in the ground to aircraft signaling system that is indicating where the runway is
This, for instance, makes absolutely zero sense and makes you look like an idiot (I'm talking about landing in the clear on manual control, which has zero to do with the ILS knowing your position, which is what makes it a goddamn test in the first place) without your later statement:
Sigh. The ILS issue was mentioned in the summary, in the article, etc. You didn't understand the issue and introduced your "non-computer hydraulics" meme which is irrelevant to the ILS issue being discussed. No one is following you off on that erroneous tangent.
they *require* computers making hundreds of microcorrections on control surfaces per second to maintain stable flight.
In fact, without that, your entire discussion seems completely off the rails, and unless I'm mistaken, you haven't made it before.
Oh no, you are mistaken. As you failed to understand the actual nature of the ILS issue you also failed to understand the underlying nature of phrases like "uncontrollable by human pilots".
Now, my halfassed knowledge of physics and above-average knowledge of flight ...
LMAO.
What I'm discussing first and foremost is policy, and I don't think I've deviated from the start. They've known this was potentially an issue for a decade or more.
And what you are ignoring is *new* evidence. For example the Boeing tests identifying the iPad as the device generating the greatest emissions beyond acceptable levels. A decade or more ago devices had less impact. And they have been addressing it in new designs of aircraft and avionics still on the drawing boards, well in the CAD/CAM systems. The problem is with the existing fleet out there. Turning off devices is a quite reasonable policy for the existing fleet.
... I've been beating you over the head with the statement, "We can test it," ...
Given the variety of aircraft and avionics systems out there, and the fact that catastrophic failures are often the result of multiple problems working in concert, I don't think you fully comprehend what would need to be tested in the context of the current fleet.
... because your argument boils down to, "Let's just keep implementing a stopgap measure as a matter of policy, indefinitely.
Not at all. Current designs under development are addressing the issue. However that does not address the reality of the day that travelers today are boarding aircraft designed decades ago. Add to this the ground based systems, like ILS, that were also designed decades ago. A lot of ground based infrastructure needs to have more modern designs as well.
More accurately I should say there were two problems, because I solved both of them.
What are your patent numbers? :-)
You can even make a plane to fly by actual, non-computer hydraulics in case of emergencies. If you did that, there would be absolutely zero of this "demonstrated signals over the acceptable limit" bullshit. They would fly a demonstration and say, "Here's the point at which the controls stop working and the plane starts to crash," or "Here's the point at which the ILS goes wonky, which means that in inclement weather, there's a 100% chance of death." And then they'd actually land the plane anyway,
Uhh, do you know how instrument landings systems work? The problem is not the fly-by-wire nature of the aircraft, the problem is that the pilot can not see the runway and is relying on ground signals and onboard instruments to get him to the runway, perhaps even have the autopilot land. One area being investigated is if the emissions by onboard devices can degrade or otherwise introduce an error into those ground signals.
You do not test an ILS system by having no other way to land. You test it by pretending you need it, but being ready to land without it.
Whether the instrument landing is practice, testing or operational your suggestion of an alternative hydraulic system is nonsense. The problem is *not* control of the aircraft, ie the failure is not the fly-by-wire control system, the problem is in the ground to aircraft signaling system that is indicating where the runway is.
You are consistently demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the problem.
Fantasy, current designs do not offer that ability and it is not possible in some cases. Some modern fly-by-wire aircraft are in fact uncontrollable by human pilots.
You're quibbling. There are ways to make a secondary flight methods which are not going to be affected by RF of any reasonable intensity or frequency.
Quibbling? Your laughable. I repeat, some aircraft are not controllable by humans, they *require* computers making hundreds of microcorrections on control surfaces per second to maintain stable flight. Your "non-computer hydraulics" can't manage this.
Why are you assuming it was within the safety margin?
The lack of a mass, frothing, screaming panic by the engineers involved tips me off. Airlines may be less profitable than they were, but it's a huge industry that millions of people depend on for all their not-dying-a-flaming-death needs. If electronic devices were, all of a sudden, completely out of the safety margins, there would be a lot of very technically knowledgeable people who would be very scared about the implications. Instead, we have a f***ing press conference where they mention that some random-seeming problems that so far haven't caused much damage might be related to electronic radiation.
You can attempt to divert attention by referring to the anecdotal reports by flight crews all you want, but the motivation of this article was testing done in Boeing laboratories that does show modern devices exceeding safe emissions levels. The technically knowledgable people are starting to show concern and they are offering actual evidence. You can continue to talk about other things but this fact remains.
That is exactly the issue to me. The fact that we have an extremely low probability but exceptionally high cost event paired with a trivial unnecessary benefit is the foundation of my opinion.
I have two main objections to this. One, you're saying that the design of the plane only vaguely factors into the situation, becoming a part of the "probability" of the event. Either there is, in fact, a vulnerability in the design, or not.
Quite the contrary. The design of the *various* planes and avionic systems are a factor, one that greatly complicates the fanciful ideas of testing you propose. We have per
And I'm sure he used some interesting and impressive hacks to trick the iphone into wirelessly syncing.
Well **IF** he went the undocumented API route then there would be no conspiracy regarding the app rejection. Undocumented APIs are an automatic rejection, it may even be part of the automated prescreening process -- completely automated, no human judgement call.
As you say, any actual risk does not have to be demonstrated, just an irrational fear needs to be invoked with sufficient sensationalism.
Actually a risk has been demonstrated by Boeing, various current devices with emissions beyond what is considered acceptable. Those referring merely to anecdotes from flight crews must not have actually read the article, in other words they are relying on anecdotes rather than scientific results.
You also mischaracterize my argument. My argument is from a cost-benefit analysis perspective. If we have an extremely low probability but extraordinarily high cost (100+ human lives) event paired with a trivial unnecessary benefit then a rational decision would be to forgo the benefit (personal device during landing). Your "proven conclusively its unsafe" approach would only be appropriate if we were discussing a benefit of substantial value, which we are not.
This is what I don't understand. With all the discussions over this, how has this not been fully tested and answered? How can we not have a definitive answer by now? And if it has been answered, why it is still being debated?
Personal devices are evolving rapidly. There is no finishing point for testing, no definitive answer. In the article you will find that Boeing has identified devices that exceed acceptable emissions levels, the worst offender was an iPad. Tests from several years ago are obsolete.
In general, the policy of leaning on the safe side is a good thing. That's not at all the issue.
That is exactly the issue to me. The fact that we have an extremely low probability but exceptionally high cost event paired with a trivial unnecessary benefit is the foundation of my opinion.
The technology exists, and methods exist, to actually find and shut off equipment were it actually a danger. The fact that they haven't implemented those procedures means the airlines don't ACTUALLY consider it a threat.
That is a leap of faith.
If there were noticeable differences when passenger electronics were on, it would have been EXCEPTIONALLY clear.
Another leap of faith. Catastrophic failures do not always have a single direct linear cause. Sometimes several minor problems interact in unexpected ways to cause the catastrophe. For example F16 instrumentation went through extensive testing on the ground and in the air. Reports of problems from pilots lead to inspections and further testing. Eventually it was found that wires chaffing against a rivet wore through insulation and caused intermittent shorts in flight, leading to incorrect instrument readings. With respect to personal devices perhaps RF shielding is being damaged/degraded in flight, or something else unexpected is happening, that makes actual flight operations different than laboratory testing.
Speaking of laboratory testing, the Boeing test stated the an iPad was the worst offender with respect to emission beyond acceptable levels. This points out another problem with your argument. Our personal devices are rapidly evolving. Testing and experience from 5 or 10 years ago may not be very relevant today.
1) If you know anything about aircraft engineering, or really any of the higher kinds of engineering, they set the acceptable limit well below the position where things can go wrong. There are many, many reasons for that.
I don't recall the article telling us how far over the limit that iPad went. Why are you assuming it was within the safety margin? Why are you implying that safety margins are unnecessary, they exist for a good reason - mostly as an acceptance of the limitations of our design assumptions and testing methodologies.
2) I don't think you understand what I'm saying. There are runways out in the middle of the desert that you can make practice landings and takeoffs at all day, every day, for months. You can have a full complement of mock passengers in the back with phones on, off, or indifferent. ...
Fantasy, its not being done. Also consider how extensively F16s were used, inspected and maintained before the unexpected set of circumstances necessary for its failure were found.
... You can even make a plane to fly by actual, non-computer hydraulics in case of emergencies ...
Fantasy, current designs do not offer that ability and it is not possible in some cases. Some modern fly-by-wire aircraft are in fact uncontrollable by human pilots.
Uhh, do you know how instrument landings systems work? The problem is not the fly-by-wire nature of the aircraft, the problem is that the pilot can not see the runway and is relying on ground signals and onboard instruments to get him to the runway, perhaps even have the autopilot land. One area being investigated is if the emissions by onboard devices can degrade or otherwise introduce an error into those ground signals.