I have been under the impression that the problem with solar as a power source wasn't the collection or direction of light but the conversion process itself, no? If that is the case, how do intensifiers or collectors help with this? Efficiency gains in collection are only going to be incremental and not Nobel Prize worthy paradigm shifts, right? The real prize is in conversion. Correct my thinking here.
In a landmark study I'm totally sure exists somewhere, it was discovered that 100% of Alzheimers were life-long heavy users of the gas "oxygen". With this indisputable evidence in hand researchers say it looks like the end of Alzheimers is in sight. Preventative measures are easy to describe and implementation can happen in the next 5-10 years. Options range from complex operations like shifting to a methane based metabolism or switching to photosynthesis to as simple as preventing air intake to block the absorption of oxygen.
Eh, normally I would agree with you but in this case I'll accept "miss". When sales were a gimmie (due to zealotry or lock-in or whatever) and you still fail to make them then you 'missed'.
I thought this video would be cool to loop on my big screen TV at home, maybe as a screen saver, but that crud on the window made me nuts. I couldn't watch it. Just skipped through to see if it ever got cleaned. It did not.
We charge cost on content and our cable operations bill hasn't gone up in 20 years. We lose money on cable TV. The internet department is supporting itself and TV and has been for 10 years because the customers would never stand for the price increase if we passed on the rate hikes of the content providers and a little for ourselves. We've just been passing on the content costs, watching our operations margin shrink to nothing, then slip into the red as we lose ground to inflation.
We get it. We don't want the crap either but the content providers tell us that if we want to carry the channels you do want then we have to carry all that crap you don't, and we get charged per customer per channel. So when they demand we carry another channel you've never heard of and don't want we have no choice but to pass that cost on to you, otherwise you'll loose that one channel you are really interested in. Federal law says they can do this and we have to suck it up.
"thanks in large part to increasing fees for things like regional sports licensing and taxes,"
100% of this rate increase, at least in our system, is directly attributable to the hikes in prices by the content providers that we pass on to customers. Our local ABC affiliate is a good example. They went from charging us $1 per customer to $4 per customer. Bam! Done. And there's nothing we can do about it. And every content network is doing this kind of crap. (Though not to this degree, admittedly.)
We just pass on the cost without any margin for ourselves. We make $0 on content. Nothing. The portion of the bill we charge for ourselves to run the cable system hasn't increased in 20 years.
I must retract the above statement. They did list the good guys. It was one sentence near the end of the article with no other discussion so I over looked it. Mea culpa.
Still, the statement starts with "Without dwelling wholly on the negative", when the fact is that this one sentence in the entire article is the only element that wasn't dwelling on the negative.
They had no problem outing the offenders, but where was the list of those who showed some integrity and shut that crap down? They make the point that the offenders were "used as trusted news sources", implying that they were doing a public service by outing those that shouldn't be trusted, but then they didn't bother to list those in whom such trust is well placed.
The disparity in treatment almost makes seem like there was some other motive to this article besides objective journalism. Like this news outlet that focuses on crypto might have something to gain from shaming naughty news outlets focusing on crypto and not mentioning the names of news outlets focusing on crypto with integrity. Hmmm...
Ironic that one of the tags at the bottom of the article is "ethics".
Sysadmin in a clinic location owned by a corporate health system. Corporate had me locked down where I couldn't do anything without their permission (Example: They wouldn't let me have access to Group Policy for my own OU.) and they were anywhere from unresponsive to obstructionist when I begged for help with anything. The local I.T. crew in the clinic had a 'one team, work together, the patient comes first' work ethic and our corporate overlords had that 'we're the big boys and you're just a pathetic remote office in the sticks, screw you that's not my job, protecting my job comes first' attitude.
Judge: You said you would lower prices and you're raising them.
Counsel: No we didn't.
J: Didn't what?
C: Say we'd lower prices.
J: You did! Right here: "The evidence overwhelmingly showed...it will enable the merged company to reduce prices..." See? "Lower prices."
C: Oh, yes, Your Honor. That totally happened. The merger has indeed enabled us to lower prices.
J: But...you...what? But you raised them.
C: Yes, Your Honor, we did. Of course we did. We're a business, we like making money. Why would we lower prices? That's just stupid. If that'll be all, Your Honor, I've got a massage and a handy I don't want to be late for. Toodles.
...If you are looking for a suspect in a city of a million people, and this system flags 10 people,...
You're quite right, flagging 10 people out of a million would be pretty darn good.
The problem is that the article said that it flagged 2470 people at the UEFA Champions League Final which had an attendance of just over 65k. The system flagged 3.8% of the population as suspect.
So using your example of a city with a million people and assuming as you have that the rates hold no matter the population size, the system would flag 38,000 people, not ten. Of those 38k nearly 35k are completely innocent.
In no world could I represent those numbers as "pretty darn good".
The YouTube app on my FireTV Stick Gen2 still works fine. I get a popup saying it won't work on 1/1/2018 but I just OK out of the popup and keep going as normal.
I did try the FireFox/YouTube combo on the Stick and it as nearly indistinguishable from the app.
What is this "limited commercials" of which Hulu speaks? I've got that subscription and a single 45 minute episode of Shark Tank has 6 commercail breaks of 2 minutes each. How is 20% of the running time being commercials being "limited"?
Slashdot Mirror
Citation needed.
I'm not questioning the value of incremental improvement. My question is how this incremental improvement gets us into the realm of "dirt cheap".
I have been under the impression that the problem with solar as a power source wasn't the collection or direction of light but the conversion process itself, no? If that is the case, how do intensifiers or collectors help with this? Efficiency gains in collection are only going to be incremental and not Nobel Prize worthy paradigm shifts, right? The real prize is in conversion. Correct my thinking here.
In a landmark study I'm totally sure exists somewhere, it was discovered that 100% of Alzheimers were life-long heavy users of the gas "oxygen". With this indisputable evidence in hand researchers say it looks like the end of Alzheimers is in sight. Preventative measures are easy to describe and implementation can happen in the next 5-10 years. Options range from complex operations like shifting to a methane based metabolism or switching to photosynthesis to as simple as preventing air intake to block the absorption of oxygen.
Eh, normally I would agree with you but in this case I'll accept "miss". When sales were a gimmie (due to zealotry or lock-in or whatever) and you still fail to make them then you 'missed'.
Apple Says It Could Miss $9 Billion In iPhone Sales Due To Effing Insane Pricing
So, $9bn huh? What's that, like 36 new iPhones or something?
I thought this video would be cool to loop on my big screen TV at home, maybe as a screen saver, but that crud on the window made me nuts. I couldn't watch it. Just skipped through to see if it ever got cleaned. It did not.
Preach.
We charge cost on content and our cable operations bill hasn't gone up in 20 years. We lose money on cable TV. The internet department is supporting itself and TV and has been for 10 years because the customers would never stand for the price increase if we passed on the rate hikes of the content providers and a little for ourselves. We've just been passing on the content costs, watching our operations margin shrink to nothing, then slip into the red as we lose ground to inflation.
"thanks in large part to increasing fees for things like regional sports licensing and taxes,"
100% of this rate increase, at least in our system, is directly attributable to the hikes in prices by the content providers that we pass on to customers. Our local ABC affiliate is a good example. They went from charging us $1 per customer to $4 per customer. Bam! Done. And there's nothing we can do about it. And every content network is doing this kind of crap. (Though not to this degree, admittedly.)
We just pass on the cost without any margin for ourselves. We make $0 on content. Nothing. The portion of the bill we charge for ourselves to run the cable system hasn't increased in 20 years.
I must retract the above statement. They did list the good guys. It was one sentence near the end of the article with no other discussion so I over looked it. Mea culpa.
Still, the statement starts with "Without dwelling wholly on the negative", when the fact is that this one sentence in the entire article is the only element that wasn't dwelling on the negative.
They had no problem outing the offenders, but where was the list of those who showed some integrity and shut that crap down? They make the point that the offenders were "used as trusted news sources", implying that they were doing a public service by outing those that shouldn't be trusted, but then they didn't bother to list those in whom such trust is well placed.
The disparity in treatment almost makes seem like there was some other motive to this article besides objective journalism. Like this news outlet that focuses on crypto might have something to gain from shaming naughty news outlets focusing on crypto and not mentioning the names of news outlets focusing on crypto with integrity. Hmmm...
Ironic that one of the tags at the bottom of the article is "ethics".
Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not...
Don't call it a comeback. They've been here for years, rocking their peers and putting drivers in fear.
Sysadmin in a clinic location owned by a corporate health system. Corporate had me locked down where I couldn't do anything without their permission (Example: They wouldn't let me have access to Group Policy for my own OU.) and they were anywhere from unresponsive to obstructionist when I begged for help with anything. The local I.T. crew in the clinic had a 'one team, work together, the patient comes first' work ethic and our corporate overlords had that 'we're the big boys and you're just a pathetic remote office in the sticks, screw you that's not my job, protecting my job comes first' attitude.
Judge: You said you would lower prices and you're raising them.
Counsel: No we didn't.
J: Didn't what?
C: Say we'd lower prices.
J: You did! Right here: "The evidence overwhelmingly showed...it will enable the merged company to reduce prices..." See? "Lower prices."
C: Oh, yes, Your Honor. That totally happened. The merger has indeed enabled us to lower prices.
J: But...you...what? But you raised them.
C: Yes, Your Honor, we did. Of course we did. We're a business, we like making money. Why would we lower prices? That's just stupid. If that'll be all, Your Honor, I've got a massage and a handy I don't want to be late for. Toodles.
About $1.2 Billion in Monopoly Money Stolen Since 2017
There, fixed that for you.
...If you are looking for a suspect in a city of a million people, and this system flags 10 people, ...
You're quite right, flagging 10 people out of a million would be pretty darn good.
The problem is that the article said that it flagged 2470 people at the UEFA Champions League Final which had an attendance of just over 65k. The system flagged 3.8% of the population as suspect.
So using your example of a city with a million people and assuming as you have that the rates hold no matter the population size, the system would flag 38,000 people, not ten. Of those 38k nearly 35k are completely innocent.
In no world could I represent those numbers as "pretty darn good".
My bad. I thought this was /.
...the "notch" made popular by the iPhone X.
Really? "Popular" seems a bit of a stretch.
The YouTube app on my FireTV Stick Gen2 still works fine. I get a popup saying it won't work on 1/1/2018 but I just OK out of the popup and keep going as normal.
I did try the FireFox/YouTube combo on the Stick and it as nearly indistinguishable from the app.
FYI, an Emeror is an Emperor in kidney failure - no P.
There, I said it; nothing bad happened to me. It's OK to point and laugh now.
Is this a thing? I thought we all quit doing this years ago because it was a guaranteed way to get your laptop stolen.
What is this "limited commercials" of which Hulu speaks? I've got that subscription and a single 45 minute episode of Shark Tank has 6 commercail breaks of 2 minutes each. How is 20% of the running time being commercials being "limited"?
"So to outrun a T. rex, many animals -- or fictional humans -- would still have to run like hell."
No problem. I can say with a fairly high degree of certainty that if I am running from a T-Rex then I will, in fact, be running like hell.