I'm sure they have some sort of protection in place to catch that. Wouldn't be surprised if store personnel are immediately alerted if somebody who is not identifiable enters the store so they can keep an eye on them.
Try FreeNAS. It makes setting up a storage server with ZFS painless. So long as you don't turn on deduplication (which as others have pointed out takes a LOT of memory) you don't need a killer machine. I'm running it on a system with an Athlon 5350 - and to be fair, 16GB RAM that I bought when RAM was really cheap last summer. Kabini isn't the world's most powerful platform but it's good enough for my needs, and a 25W TDP processor is appealing for a system that is on 24/7.
ZFS is part of FreeNAS, a storage solution that is becoming popular. It's also now available for Ubuntu Linux. We're still in the "not widely used" phase but that is changing.
At least it's only the discs themselves and the writing that are proprietary. A bog-standard optical drive can read them, so we are spared one set of potential problems.
She could have been a waitress. In the right sort of fancy establishment it actually is possible to make that much money from tips. You're still trading on sex appeal, and you have to be beautiful as well as charming and young (as well as excellent at providing table service) to get that job, but it doesn't involve removal of clothing.
Amazon is testing stores where you walk in, pick your items off the shelf, and walk out. No checkout at all. They identify you by Bluetooth in your phone, identify what you bought by RFID chips in the merchandise, and bill your credit card.
Many Canadians use British language. They generally use the British spellings of many words (such as colour, defence, realise). In the case of trash can / dustbin, both terms are in common use in Canada, probably because of the influence of that big place south of the border; in England you would rarely encounter trash can.
Their method should lead to a reasonably accurate result. They started with the average concentration of the sweetener in the urine of Canadians; people who consume lots of ACE will have more, people who avoid it will have less. (Hardly anybody will reach zero because the stuff is now showing up in the water supply.) The math could be off if the population of swimmers at those pools is not a representative sample of the Canadian population, if ACE is excreted in sweat, if significant amounts are coming from the bodies of swimmers (food or drinks still on the lips or spilled elsewhere), or if soft drinks are getting spilled into the pool.
They concentrated on that one because it passes through the human body unaltered, and it's unlikely to be found in the environment beyond the levels that have become common in water supplies. Other artificial sweeteners break down and the metabolic products might be difficult to tell apart from other things. Their estimate could be off by a factor of two in either direction if swimmers at those pools are not representative of the general Canadian population; they might consume more or less ACE than the national average.
Games are no longer the only reason to buy a high end video card. Rendering video is another popular use; all the major non-linear video editing programs support GPU-assisted rendering now and DaVinci Resolve requires the presence of at least a mid-range GPU to work at all. 3D content creation (programs like Maya and Blender) is another. And GPUs are used in a lot of scientific computing.
Agreed. At least it's obvious to anybody with at least half a brain that there is a quid pro quo arrangement going on. And everybody is getting some benefit out of it. The listeners get to see a live performance for free, the radio station gets a giveaway that helps promote loyalty to the station, the record company gets promotion for their artist, and the artist gets an opportunity to perform andgets publicity for their work.
Stations that play current music won't be exactly the same; they usually put a handful of local songs in the mix. But it's easy to get the automation to do that; no more difficult than putting in the local ads.
Or they arrange promotional events. Record company sets up a performance by one of their artists, and gives some or all the tickets to the radio station to give away. (A small venue show would be exclusively giveaway; for an event in a larger venue it might only be 5-10% of the tickets.) Or they set up a free performance in a public space that the station promotes. In exchange the radio station talks up the artist regularly on the air, and maybe even broadcasts interviews and the like. Giving the artist's recordings plenty of plays is an unwritten part of the agreement because of the payola laws, but it also comes as part of the package... and with all the promotional talk about the artist the audience is probably asking to hear their music anyway.
The optical output is useful if you already own an older receiver or digital processor that lacks HDMI capability. In that setup you use the TV as the HDMI switcher, and then run digital audio over to the receiver.
Usually the lack of HDMI would also mean that the equipment also would lack decoding of newer audio formats, so it would be time for a new one. But there are some very high end digital processors that receive regular software updates from their manufacturers and can decode formats that were released well after they were manufactured. Those things cost thousands of dollars, so the owner would be understandably reluctant to replace them.
False equivalence. We're about an order of magnitude away from having good enough materials to build a space elevator, but huge amounts of progress have been made in materials science over the years and we know of materials that might be able to fill the need with further development. I think it's more like 70 years off than 7, but at least we an imagine a path to get there from here. A transporter, on the other hand, requires one of three things:
Path #1 is to invent some new physical principle that lets you open mini-wormholes to get people and things from point A to point B.
Path #2 is to develop a different new physical principle that lets you take people apart into component molecules, move those molecules to another location in a particle beam, and then put the people back together at the other end. The visual evidence suggests that the Star Trek transporter works by this method.
Way #3: somehow completely encode the entire molecular structure of a person at one end (which would require orders of magnitude more computing power than the entire planet currently possesses), send the encoded information to the other end (which might involve sending many terabytes of data... or it might be possible to do much more efficiently, we don't know), and assemble a new copy of the person at the other end (which would require large amounts of energy to rearrange atoms). This method would require a receiver at the other end, so it couldn't be used to transport people to empty planets and the needed raw materials must be available at the receiving end. The energy consumption would be substantial. It also assumes that fully encoding the physical structure of the human body is sufficient; if it turns out that there is some kind of intangible soul after all, all the plans are out the window. And finally, there are ethical questions, because this method would make it possible to COPY people as well as move them.
Only the third is even close to being an extrapolation of current science rather than requiring the discovery of new principles that may not even be possible to accomplish in this universe, and the third one requires singularity-level computer science as well as advanced nanoconstructors. Basically, we don't even know enough about any of those possibilities to venture a guess about how long it will take for one of them to happen.
Just sending rich people and just sending heroes is about equally bad. But NASA didn't only send heroes to space; it sent up a lot of scientists, though mostly that was later in the Space Shuttle and ISS era. The question is how to get to the point of sending up more ordinary people, and it's not clear to me whether we will get them more effectively with a government program or with private launches.
The early phases of space exploration would have been harder to accomplish without government involvement. They were about national pride, long term scientific research, and national defense - all things that either pay off with event horizons that are too far off for most private investors (the long term research) or don't pay at all. There is plenty of money to be made by taking government defense contracts, but it's hard to figure out how you could make money as a private business with no government involvement, anarcho-capitalist fantasies notwithstanding.
The Apollo program spent $20 billion in dollars of the time ($122.5 billion in 2017 dollars) to launch 33 people, for a total cost of $3.7 billion per astronaut in current money. Not even the super-rich would pay that much to go to space. Even if you absorbed a lot of that as an R&D expense and charged a mere $1 billion I don't think there would be any takers.
But we have now reached the point where private launch companies are feasible. There is plenty of business for the routine work of launching satellites, and costs are now low enough that a few people can afford space tourism. It might be feasible to finance a moon shot with a combination of corporate sponsors (presumably in exchange for advertising), crowdfunding from space enthusiasts, and selling a couple of seats on the mission. (You can't sell all of them because you need a pilot/mission commander and you certainly want to send a couple of scientists.)
Nuclear thermal rockets are inadequate for lifting out of a gravity well. Nuclear pulse rockets (Project Orion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) are another matter, but they have this little problem of nuclear fallout that make them unsuitable for planetary liftoff.
All the early projection TVs that I have seen had curved screens. That includes the Advent VideoBeam (the one that started it all), the Kloss NovaBeam (the new company Henry Kloss started after Advent threw him out), and a couple of models of those clunky one-piece things that some Japanese companies made. It makes the optical design simpler, since every point on the screen is the same distance from the lens. Those screens weren't just curved on one axis like the curved LCD and OLED TVs; the corners were bent in more.
You're still stuck with the extra UI complications that come with a smart TV. But within three years you'll have to do that anyway because all the smart apps on the TV will be obsolete and no longer function with the services they're intended to work with. (Maybe five years for LG's WebOS TVs because they actually seem to occasionally get updates. And maybe Android TV; it remains to be seen whether that platform will receive regular updates.)
So far as I know, LG is the only company that has made an OLED TV that size. Their current model, the OLED77G6P, fills many but not all of your wishes. It is flat and it has 4 HDMI inputs. It even has 3D capability, the only TV in the current LG lineup to have that.
But it is a smart TV (WebOS 3.0). And it uses the RF-based Magic Remote, not IR. Not sure why you prefer IR; perhaps for the ability to control other components. An RF remote that comes with an IR blaster would be even better, as it would get you universal control along with the freedom from aiming and wall issues that RF brings you. But the Magic Remote is not that; for that level of remote bliss you have to go with something third-party like a Harmony Remote. If you can afford a $20,000 TV the additional expense shouldn't be a problem.
And it has no optical audio outputs. You're never going to get those from anybody. The content producers won't let you have them. Current video sources (Blu-Ray and Ultra Blu-Ray, streaming boxes) are only allowed to pass high resolution audio formats over HDCP-protected HDMI. Any non-protected audio outputs are required to be downsampled to 16/48 or less, or restricted to the older lossy multichannel formats like the original Dolby Digital or DTS.
Keeping the service offerings up to date in a list like that is an impossible task. They change rapidly. For that matter, the list of providers itself is surely no longer 100% accurate; some of the small providers have probably merged, been acquired, or folded.
But it conveys an important truth. Most of us are served by a few large providers, but there is a long tail of smaller businesses that provide internet service.
The original AMD 8088 goes back to the days when it was routine for manufacturers of electronic products to insist on second sources being available. It was a true second source of Intel's chip, based on the same die design but made in different foundries. AMD's 80286 was also based on Intel's design. Intel then decided not to share later designs with AMD, so all their later x86 chips were at least partly designed by AMD.
AMD's first fully in-house design was the K5, but it and the follow-on K6 preserved pin compatibility with the original Pentium. The K7 (Athlon) was the first one to diverge farther from Intel's chips; it was not pin-compatible and required its own motherboard design. The K8 (Athlon 64) was the first chip with the x86-64 instruction set extension that was later also adopted by Intel.
You're not getting to keep $3/box. The current price for sending Media Mail is $2.63 for retail packages, or $2.51 for commercial shipment of packages with basic presort. It comes down to $1.82 if you can do 5-digit presort but you have to be sending a LOT of packages to qualify for that rate. Books are a bit cheaper to ship commercially because they qualify for the bound printed matter rate, which varies from $1.40 to $1.75 depending on where it is going. (That's the presorted rate; carrier route is a bit cheaper but no bookseller is likely to be shipping enough books to qualify for that rate, it's pretty much just for magazines.)
Those numbers don't include packaging; they're just the amount you pay the Postal Service. To that you have to add the cost of the envelope or box, the cost of the address label and the tape, and pay yourself or somebody for their time.
They do care if you are happy. Unhappy customers don't generate much repeat business.
Amazon is all about getting you to buy things from them regularly, even offering things like subscriptions to get regular shipments of household supplies and special electronic buttons that they give away to make it easier to order things. Yes, they charge you $4.99 for the button but it comes with a $4.99 credit that you get the first time you use it. And they sometimes have sales where they sell the buttons for $0.99... but you still get the $4.99 credit when you use it, which means they are PAYING you $4 to take the button.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure they have some sort of protection in place to catch that. Wouldn't be surprised if store personnel are immediately alerted if somebody who is not identifiable enters the store so they can keep an eye on them.
Try FreeNAS. It makes setting up a storage server with ZFS painless. So long as you don't turn on deduplication (which as others have pointed out takes a LOT of memory) you don't need a killer machine. I'm running it on a system with an Athlon 5350 - and to be fair, 16GB RAM that I bought when RAM was really cheap last summer. Kabini isn't the world's most powerful platform but it's good enough for my needs, and a 25W TDP processor is appealing for a system that is on 24/7.
ZFS is part of FreeNAS, a storage solution that is becoming popular. It's also now available for Ubuntu Linux. We're still in the "not widely used" phase but that is changing.
At least it's only the discs themselves and the writing that are proprietary. A bog-standard optical drive can read them, so we are spared one set of potential problems.
At tech companies it is not uncommon to simply not accept paper CVs. They are thrown away unread. It's digital or nothing.
She could have been a waitress. In the right sort of fancy establishment it actually is possible to make that much money from tips. You're still trading on sex appeal, and you have to be beautiful as well as charming and young (as well as excellent at providing table service) to get that job, but it doesn't involve removal of clothing.
Amazon is testing stores where you walk in, pick your items off the shelf, and walk out. No checkout at all. They identify you by Bluetooth in your phone, identify what you bought by RFID chips in the merchandise, and bill your credit card.
Many Canadians use British language. They generally use the British spellings of many words (such as colour, defence, realise). In the case of trash can / dustbin, both terms are in common use in Canada, probably because of the influence of that big place south of the border; in England you would rarely encounter trash can.
Their method should lead to a reasonably accurate result. They started with the average concentration of the sweetener in the urine of Canadians; people who consume lots of ACE will have more, people who avoid it will have less. (Hardly anybody will reach zero because the stuff is now showing up in the water supply.) The math could be off if the population of swimmers at those pools is not a representative sample of the Canadian population, if ACE is excreted in sweat, if significant amounts are coming from the bodies of swimmers (food or drinks still on the lips or spilled elsewhere), or if soft drinks are getting spilled into the pool.
They concentrated on that one because it passes through the human body unaltered, and it's unlikely to be found in the environment beyond the levels that have become common in water supplies. Other artificial sweeteners break down and the metabolic products might be difficult to tell apart from other things. Their estimate could be off by a factor of two in either direction if swimmers at those pools are not representative of the general Canadian population; they might consume more or less ACE than the national average.
Games are no longer the only reason to buy a high end video card. Rendering video is another popular use; all the major non-linear video editing programs support GPU-assisted rendering now and DaVinci Resolve requires the presence of at least a mid-range GPU to work at all. 3D content creation (programs like Maya and Blender) is another. And GPUs are used in a lot of scientific computing.
Agreed. At least it's obvious to anybody with at least half a brain that there is a quid pro quo arrangement going on. And everybody is getting some benefit out of it. The listeners get to see a live performance for free, the radio station gets a giveaway that helps promote loyalty to the station, the record company gets promotion for their artist, and the artist gets an opportunity to perform andgets publicity for their work.
Stations that play current music won't be exactly the same; they usually put a handful of local songs in the mix. But it's easy to get the automation to do that; no more difficult than putting in the local ads.
Or they arrange promotional events. Record company sets up a performance by one of their artists, and gives some or all the tickets to the radio station to give away. (A small venue show would be exclusively giveaway; for an event in a larger venue it might only be 5-10% of the tickets.) Or they set up a free performance in a public space that the station promotes. In exchange the radio station talks up the artist regularly on the air, and maybe even broadcasts interviews and the like. Giving the artist's recordings plenty of plays is an unwritten part of the agreement because of the payola laws, but it also comes as part of the package... and with all the promotional talk about the artist the audience is probably asking to hear their music anyway.
The optical output is useful if you already own an older receiver or digital processor that lacks HDMI capability. In that setup you use the TV as the HDMI switcher, and then run digital audio over to the receiver.
Usually the lack of HDMI would also mean that the equipment also would lack decoding of newer audio formats, so it would be time for a new one. But there are some very high end digital processors that receive regular software updates from their manufacturers and can decode formats that were released well after they were manufactured. Those things cost thousands of dollars, so the owner would be understandably reluctant to replace them.
False equivalence. We're about an order of magnitude away from having good enough materials to build a space elevator, but huge amounts of progress have been made in materials science over the years and we know of materials that might be able to fill the need with further development. I think it's more like 70 years off than 7, but at least we an imagine a path to get there from here. A transporter, on the other hand, requires one of three things:
Path #1 is to invent some new physical principle that lets you open mini-wormholes to get people and things from point A to point B.
Path #2 is to develop a different new physical principle that lets you take people apart into component molecules, move those molecules to another location in a particle beam, and then put the people back together at the other end. The visual evidence suggests that the Star Trek transporter works by this method.
Way #3: somehow completely encode the entire molecular structure of a person at one end (which would require orders of magnitude more computing power than the entire planet currently possesses), send the encoded information to the other end (which might involve sending many terabytes of data... or it might be possible to do much more efficiently, we don't know), and assemble a new copy of the person at the other end (which would require large amounts of energy to rearrange atoms). This method would require a receiver at the other end, so it couldn't be used to transport people to empty planets and the needed raw materials must be available at the receiving end. The energy consumption would be substantial. It also assumes that fully encoding the physical structure of the human body is sufficient; if it turns out that there is some kind of intangible soul after all, all the plans are out the window. And finally, there are ethical questions, because this method would make it possible to COPY people as well as move them.
Only the third is even close to being an extrapolation of current science rather than requiring the discovery of new principles that may not even be possible to accomplish in this universe, and the third one requires singularity-level computer science as well as advanced nanoconstructors. Basically, we don't even know enough about any of those possibilities to venture a guess about how long it will take for one of them to happen.
Just sending rich people and just sending heroes is about equally bad. But NASA didn't only send heroes to space; it sent up a lot of scientists, though mostly that was later in the Space Shuttle and ISS era. The question is how to get to the point of sending up more ordinary people, and it's not clear to me whether we will get them more effectively with a government program or with private launches.
The early phases of space exploration would have been harder to accomplish without government involvement. They were about national pride, long term scientific research, and national defense - all things that either pay off with event horizons that are too far off for most private investors (the long term research) or don't pay at all. There is plenty of money to be made by taking government defense contracts, but it's hard to figure out how you could make money as a private business with no government involvement, anarcho-capitalist fantasies notwithstanding.
The Apollo program spent $20 billion in dollars of the time ($122.5 billion in 2017 dollars) to launch 33 people, for a total cost of $3.7 billion per astronaut in current money. Not even the super-rich would pay that much to go to space. Even if you absorbed a lot of that as an R&D expense and charged a mere $1 billion I don't think there would be any takers.
But we have now reached the point where private launch companies are feasible. There is plenty of business for the routine work of launching satellites, and costs are now low enough that a few people can afford space tourism. It might be feasible to finance a moon shot with a combination of corporate sponsors (presumably in exchange for advertising), crowdfunding from space enthusiasts, and selling a couple of seats on the mission. (You can't sell all of them because you need a pilot/mission commander and you certainly want to send a couple of scientists.)
Nuclear thermal rockets are inadequate for lifting out of a gravity well. Nuclear pulse rockets (Project Orion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) are another matter, but they have this little problem of nuclear fallout that make them unsuitable for planetary liftoff.
All the early projection TVs that I have seen had curved screens. That includes the Advent VideoBeam (the one that started it all), the Kloss NovaBeam (the new company Henry Kloss started after Advent threw him out), and a couple of models of those clunky one-piece things that some Japanese companies made. It makes the optical design simpler, since every point on the screen is the same distance from the lens. Those screens weren't just curved on one axis like the curved LCD and OLED TVs; the corners were bent in more.
Here's an article about the VideoBeam 1000: http://www.soundandvision.com/...
You're still stuck with the extra UI complications that come with a smart TV. But within three years you'll have to do that anyway because all the smart apps on the TV will be obsolete and no longer function with the services they're intended to work with. (Maybe five years for LG's WebOS TVs because they actually seem to occasionally get updates. And maybe Android TV; it remains to be seen whether that platform will receive regular updates.)
So far as I know, LG is the only company that has made an OLED TV that size. Their current model, the OLED77G6P, fills many but not all of your wishes. It is flat and it has 4 HDMI inputs. It even has 3D capability, the only TV in the current LG lineup to have that.
But it is a smart TV (WebOS 3.0). And it uses the RF-based Magic Remote, not IR. Not sure why you prefer IR; perhaps for the ability to control other components. An RF remote that comes with an IR blaster would be even better, as it would get you universal control along with the freedom from aiming and wall issues that RF brings you. But the Magic Remote is not that; for that level of remote bliss you have to go with something third-party like a Harmony Remote. If you can afford a $20,000 TV the additional expense shouldn't be a problem.
And it has no optical audio outputs. You're never going to get those from anybody. The content producers won't let you have them. Current video sources (Blu-Ray and Ultra Blu-Ray, streaming boxes) are only allowed to pass high resolution audio formats over HDCP-protected HDMI. Any non-protected audio outputs are required to be downsampled to 16/48 or less, or restricted to the older lossy multichannel formats like the original Dolby Digital or DTS.
Keeping the service offerings up to date in a list like that is an impossible task. They change rapidly. For that matter, the list of providers itself is surely no longer 100% accurate; some of the small providers have probably merged, been acquired, or folded.
But it conveys an important truth. Most of us are served by a few large providers, but there is a long tail of smaller businesses that provide internet service.
The original AMD 8088 goes back to the days when it was routine for manufacturers of electronic products to insist on second sources being available. It was a true second source of Intel's chip, based on the same die design but made in different foundries. AMD's 80286 was also based on Intel's design. Intel then decided not to share later designs with AMD, so all their later x86 chips were at least partly designed by AMD.
AMD's first fully in-house design was the K5, but it and the follow-on K6 preserved pin compatibility with the original Pentium. The K7 (Athlon) was the first one to diverge farther from Intel's chips; it was not pin-compatible and required its own motherboard design. The K8 (Athlon 64) was the first chip with the x86-64 instruction set extension that was later also adopted by Intel.
You're not getting to keep $3/box. The current price for sending Media Mail is $2.63 for retail packages, or $2.51 for commercial shipment of packages with basic presort. It comes down to $1.82 if you can do 5-digit presort but you have to be sending a LOT of packages to qualify for that rate. Books are a bit cheaper to ship commercially because they qualify for the bound printed matter rate, which varies from $1.40 to $1.75 depending on where it is going. (That's the presorted rate; carrier route is a bit cheaper but no bookseller is likely to be shipping enough books to qualify for that rate, it's pretty much just for magazines.)
Those numbers don't include packaging; they're just the amount you pay the Postal Service. To that you have to add the cost of the envelope or box, the cost of the address label and the tape, and pay yourself or somebody for their time.
They do care if you are happy. Unhappy customers don't generate much repeat business.
Amazon is all about getting you to buy things from them regularly, even offering things like subscriptions to get regular shipments of household supplies and special electronic buttons that they give away to make it easier to order things. Yes, they charge you $4.99 for the button but it comes with a $4.99 credit that you get the first time you use it. And they sometimes have sales where they sell the buttons for $0.99... but you still get the $4.99 credit when you use it, which means they are PAYING you $4 to take the button.