At least by my reading of the article, the 'first draft' of the law looks like it'd count smoke detectors as an air monitor - after all, it's looking for smoke in the air.
Come to think of it, I think it'd be funny if they passed this law and the new police approval section were promptly buried under registration requests for millions of smoke detectors.
Think about it - one per apartment, two or more in the hallways for each floor, equivalent numbers in commercial buildings. Why, I wouldn't be surprised if a 20 story building has over a thousand seperate smoke detectors in it.
My point was that tasting was implemented back in the day when: A: Registering a domain was still fairly expensive B: Malicious usages of the internet were still rare and fairly inelegant.
As for cost, domain registration is considerably cheaper than it used to be.
Right now, services like google adsense can make 'tasting' profitable because it doesn't cost any money. If you simply make it cost more than what 5 days of ad revenue would likely generate, you'd kill it immediately.
Well, imagine that you're a company/person contracted to build a website for XYZ Company. You come up with a dozen or so potential domain names, 'tasting' them in order to make sure they're available(without tying them up for a full year, or spending the money to register them for a year). You then present the domain names to the company, which picks the one they like the best, maybe one other for a redirect. You then release the other four and call it a day.
Make sense that way. Abusers, of course, were not initially considered.
Actually, you can increase the efficiency of the engine by increasing the compression ratio; ethanol has a relatively high octane rating, actually higher than most premium gasoline in the E85 form.
This won't make up 100% of the milage difference, but the fact that most ethanol vehicles are 'flex-fuel' capable of running on standard gasoline limits the compression ratio they can run at. This costs them mileage when running on ethanol. There are a number of tricks, yes, but most companies don't exploit them. A dedicated E85 vehicle, or one that needs premium if you MUST use dino-fuel(or even the E10 midgrade) could be more efficient.
Power isn't an issue; you can simply inject more ethanol into the chamber, run richer to make up for the lower energy of the ethanol by volume.
A critical question here would be how many city/highway miles and what fueleconomy.gov is assuming for gasoline vs E85 prices...
Digging into the website, that seems to be $3.07 for gasoline and $2.40 for ethanol.
At those prices, it would be 937.5 gallons of gas, 1249.6 E85.
Figuring on 16.5 combined mpg for gasoline, that's about 15.5k miles for gas, 12.5 for E85 gives 15.6k miles.
Close enough to me. So if E85 drops to $2/gallon and Gasoline rises to $3.50, it'd flip and E85 would become substantially cheaper
$2499 for E85 vs $3281.
While expenses have certainly increased, we managed to have $1/gallon gasoline for years, so I certainly don't think that distribution would double the price of ethanol, if it can indeed be produced at the refinery for $1/gallon.
As a side effect, I can see coastal cities sticking with oil for the time being while the midwest changes to E85 left and right. After all, we're far closer to the fuel stocks and presumably the refineries. Longer shipping distances for fossil fuels combined with shorter distances for ethanol stock would make the math make sense there sooner than areas with easier access to fossil fuels via barge, pipe, or well.
I had a similar thought, though it was for injunctions.
For example, Buffalo is currently unable to sell most of it's wireless routers right now due to an injunction based on a patent found invalid in japan(where it was originally filed).
If the party that requested the injunction doesn't win it's case then it's liable for any and all lost revenues.
The only exemptions would be injunctions based on safety - not business. Unless it's found that the safety issue was faked or unrealistic. IE there's a legitimate suspicion a bunch of beef is tainted - an injunction on the sale of the beef pending testing is justified, even if it's later determined that the meat was clean.
However, businesses have the theory today that if they roll over and settle for stuff like this rather than fighting it, that rather than having one or two a year they'd have a dozen a month - which isn't cheaper than fighting the occasional demonstration case.
Instead, I figure the cell phone companies will mostly band together to bury the company in lawyer generated paperwork.
In that case, you should at the very least have workable blueprints, at least within engineering limits of the time.
IE for a new type of nuclear reactor you present design drawings for the reactor - which, to the best of the ability of the time, will work as stated if built according to the plans.
And this would only be for massive objects - for smaller stuff, like a car, at least a prototype should be required.
Actually, everyone's a winner, including the consumer - who has the opportunity to buy a burger somewhere where he wouldn't otherwise have been able to. Even if it is at extra expense.
They should take that spectrum, and award it based on the public good that will come of it.
I'll point out that at least some direct good will come of this - part of the spectrum is assigned for a new emergency communication systems, capable of penetrating walls much better than current systems. The rules are such that emergency departments should be able to get better radios for less than current.
I'd argue that the bidding process means that only companies sure they'll be able to make money by providing a service people will pay for will bid. That way the waves will get used by the companies who are looking towards the highest profit - meaning consumers will willingly pay the most for that product, and consider it a good deal.
Free to receive, costs & requires a permit to tranmsit.
The broadcasters, like with radio and free papers, recovered their costs through the selling of advertising.
Besides, under the new digital television standard, there will actually be the potential for MORE channels of TV to broadcast - even a HDTV signal doesn't take the bandwidth an analoge signal needs.
Meanwhile Uncle Sam is pitching in some of the proceeds of the auction to subsidize the cost of new tuners.
A major telco, or a coalition of the major telcos, will go deep into dept to bid an extremely high price that no one can match, then win, then use their effective monopoly to continue the USA's crappy position in telecommunication quality, and thereby charge high enough prices to pay back the debt from their bid.
One of the things I wanted to see was the creation of another unregulated band range like the 2.4 and 5 GHz ranges(with similar 'play nice' rulesets).
While the spectrum sold in the auction would still be valuable, potential product producers unable to buy a chunk of the spectrum would be able to still make a product(just wouldn't be able to count on sole access).
Having played a number of videos off of the internet, I can honestly say that even with four different media player systems that there is both an underlying video system and differences between players.
I don't normally notice when WMP borks something up, because I normally use mPlayer. mPlayer won't play it, half the time I can get one of the others to play it.
All I can do is shrug. And I refuse to install quicktime on my computer.
This is one of the reasons that I really wish someplace was seriously looking at installing a PRT system.
Everybody can get individual cars, it's demand based and non-stop so it can compete well with the speed of an automobile.
Heck, in some rather congested areas it'd probably be faster.
Faster *AND* able to safely read a book or do other work during the trip? Bonus! Even if you'd probably end up driving to a concentrator lot from the suburbs, at least initially.
Given that they were suffering crashes with the machines, they might be able to pursue it on a basis of the machines not meeting reliability standards, but that would indeed depend on the contract.
As much as I'd like to see the state return the machines and stop paying(or even demand a refund), it's likely not possible for the reason you state.
Paper ballots are for luddites and a complete sham.
There's a huge difference though between punch-card ballots and optical scan(paper) ballets.
So far, every time somebody pops up talking about how bad paper ballets are they bring up hanging chads -
Pure Electronic voting isn't ready for real world use, in my and many other's opinions. Optical scanning is a mature technology though, and you can always go back and count by hand if necessary.
There, if the bubble or dash or whatever isn't completely filled in, I'd have to wonder how much the voter really cared about that vote.
One thing that got me was them talking about how the touch-screen voting allowed true anonymous voting by the blind. I'm curious as to how that works, given that a blind person won't be able to tell one 'button' from another on a touch screen. Maybe something along the line of a headset saying 'touch right side of screen for Bush, left side for Gore'? Then 'You have selected X, to confirm, press near bottom of screen'.
Modern vehicles make it harder for vehicles to get out of tune, and when they do it alerts the driver, but comparing a pre-cat '60s car in good shape with a modern one will not result in a difference of that magnatude.
I agree on the out of tune part. Basically, I was stating something from an old study that said that getting rid of $500 junkers would do more to reduce pollution than upping car standards again.
That's why it's so much dirtier in CA today than the '70s? The cost diffrence of all emissions gear is probably less than the required airbags. Perhaps you should also complain about safety features killing people because they make people drive old cars more.
Polluting or not, safe or not, you can only keep a car rolling for so long before it becomes cheaper to buy a newer one. And my point would be that a modern car without airbags would still be safer than one from the '70s.
Basically, I'm arguing that any pollution reduction program should look at multiple factors - one being that a softer standard met by more people can be better than a stricter standard followed by fewer.
Cheney's a classic case of the wrong load for the job, or why birdshot in a self defense case is stupid.
Somebody pulls a knife on me, I'm pulling a gun, and not because I generally don't carry a knife.
Note to all Muggers, Burglars, Robbers out there: Birdshot is a GREAT round for your needs! Pick the highest gauge possible - #20 is much better than #12.
Good catch. Yes. Basic Law would definitely be part of the course, along with the basics of criminal/civil courts. Heck, some areas might do well with some practical rules for avoiding a beatdown during interactions with police.
Honestly enough, I think that a course like that would be more useful in some areas than calculus, history of music, etc...
Yes, Did you miss the second sentence in that paragraph?
For an admitably limited value of 'trained'. I'm no EMT, but I am trained on stuff like clearing airways, immobilizing broken limbs, handling eye wounds, CPR, bleeding, tourniquet, etc...
It's all about limiting damage until the real medics can get there. Or, if the area is dangerous, getting the casualty out of the area to the medic.
, then the fact that you are discouraged from helping others in need
False, as others have noted, we have good samaritarian laws to protect you if you choose to help during an emergency. In addition, a number of states have mandatory stop rules. I've been late to work a couple times for stopping to respond - and I've never been dinged for it, instead I've been congratulated.
There were some problems with lawsuits during the worst of our sue-crazy phase, that's the reason for the laws. Fortunately, I think that we have the crazy lawsuits much more in control than we used to.
Heck, you noted that you are living in Australia - another poster talked about an incident involving a female and CPR - she sued because the performer exposed her breasts to be able to perform CPR, and won.
Slashdot Mirror
At least by my reading of the article, the 'first draft' of the law looks like it'd count smoke detectors as an air monitor - after all, it's looking for smoke in the air.
Come to think of it, I think it'd be funny if they passed this law and the new police approval section were promptly buried under registration requests for millions of smoke detectors.
Think about it - one per apartment, two or more in the hallways for each floor, equivalent numbers in commercial buildings. Why, I wouldn't be surprised if a 20 story building has over a thousand seperate smoke detectors in it.
And then come back around a sixtieth of a second or so later to scan again, perhaps?
Insignificant now, but at one time it wasn't.
When I talked about the scenario I was thinking about the earliest days of the internet, when you only had one registrar, etc...
Yes, there are some other easy fixes.
My point was that tasting was implemented back in the day when:
A: Registering a domain was still fairly expensive
B: Malicious usages of the internet were still rare and fairly inelegant.
Like I said, abuse not initially considered
As for cost, domain registration is considerably cheaper than it used to be.
Right now, services like google adsense can make 'tasting' profitable because it doesn't cost any money. If you simply make it cost more than what 5 days of ad revenue would likely generate, you'd kill it immediately.
And yes, I know and hate the spam websites.
Well, imagine that you're a company/person contracted to build a website for XYZ Company. You come up with a dozen or so potential domain names, 'tasting' them in order to make sure they're available(without tying them up for a full year, or spending the money to register them for a year). You then present the domain names to the company, which picks the one they like the best, maybe one other for a redirect. You then release the other four and call it a day.
Make sense that way. Abusers, of course, were not initially considered.
Actually, you can increase the efficiency of the engine by increasing the compression ratio; ethanol has a relatively high octane rating, actually higher than most premium gasoline in the E85 form.
This won't make up 100% of the milage difference, but the fact that most ethanol vehicles are 'flex-fuel' capable of running on standard gasoline limits the compression ratio they can run at. This costs them mileage when running on ethanol. There are a number of tricks, yes, but most companies don't exploit them. A dedicated E85 vehicle, or one that needs premium if you MUST use dino-fuel(or even the E10 midgrade) could be more efficient.
Power isn't an issue; you can simply inject more ethanol into the chamber, run richer to make up for the lower energy of the ethanol by volume.
A critical question here would be how many city/highway miles and what fueleconomy.gov is assuming for gasoline vs E85 prices...
Digging into the website, that seems to be $3.07 for gasoline and $2.40 for ethanol.
At those prices, it would be 937.5 gallons of gas, 1249.6 E85.
Figuring on 16.5 combined mpg for gasoline, that's about 15.5k miles for gas, 12.5 for E85 gives 15.6k miles.
Close enough to me. So if E85 drops to $2/gallon and Gasoline rises to $3.50, it'd flip and E85 would become substantially cheaper
$2499 for E85 vs $3281.
While expenses have certainly increased, we managed to have $1/gallon gasoline for years, so I certainly don't think that distribution would double the price of ethanol, if it can indeed be produced at the refinery for $1/gallon.
As a side effect, I can see coastal cities sticking with oil for the time being while the midwest changes to E85 left and right. After all, we're far closer to the fuel stocks and presumably the refineries. Longer shipping distances for fossil fuels combined with shorter distances for ethanol stock would make the math make sense there sooner than areas with easier access to fossil fuels via barge, pipe, or well.
I had a similar thought, though it was for injunctions.
For example, Buffalo is currently unable to sell most of it's wireless routers right now due to an injunction based on a patent found invalid in japan(where it was originally filed).
If the party that requested the injunction doesn't win it's case then it's liable for any and all lost revenues.
The only exemptions would be injunctions based on safety - not business. Unless it's found that the safety issue was faked or unrealistic. IE there's a legitimate suspicion a bunch of beef is tainted - an injunction on the sale of the beef pending testing is justified, even if it's later determined that the meat was clean.
However, businesses have the theory today that if they roll over and settle for stuff like this rather than fighting it, that rather than having one or two a year they'd have a dozen a month - which isn't cheaper than fighting the occasional demonstration case.
Instead, I figure the cell phone companies will mostly band together to bury the company in lawyer generated paperwork.
In that case, you should at the very least have workable blueprints, at least within engineering limits of the time.
IE for a new type of nuclear reactor you present design drawings for the reactor - which, to the best of the ability of the time, will work as stated if built according to the plans.
And this would only be for massive objects - for smaller stuff, like a car, at least a prototype should be required.
It's more likely a hybrid immune system at this point. So both body tissue types are accepted.
Everybody's a winner - except the consumer.
Actually, everyone's a winner, including the consumer - who has the opportunity to buy a burger somewhere where he wouldn't otherwise have been able to. Even if it is at extra expense.
They should take that spectrum, and award it based on the public good that will come of it.
I'll point out that at least some direct good will come of this - part of the spectrum is assigned for a new emergency communication systems, capable of penetrating walls much better than current systems. The rules are such that emergency departments should be able to get better radios for less than current.
I'd argue that the bidding process means that only companies sure they'll be able to make money by providing a service people will pay for will bid. That way the waves will get used by the companies who are looking towards the highest profit - meaning consumers will willingly pay the most for that product, and consider it a good deal.
Free to receive, costs & requires a permit to tranmsit.
The broadcasters, like with radio and free papers, recovered their costs through the selling of advertising.
Besides, under the new digital television standard, there will actually be the potential for MORE channels of TV to broadcast - even a HDTV signal doesn't take the bandwidth an analoge signal needs.
Meanwhile Uncle Sam is pitching in some of the proceeds of the auction to subsidize the cost of new tuners.
A major telco, or a coalition of the major telcos, will go deep into dept to bid an extremely high price that no one can match, then win, then use their effective monopoly to continue the USA's crappy position in telecommunication quality, and thereby charge high enough prices to pay back the debt from their bid.
One of the things I wanted to see was the creation of another unregulated band range like the 2.4 and 5 GHz ranges(with similar 'play nice' rulesets).
While the spectrum sold in the auction would still be valuable, potential product producers unable to buy a chunk of the spectrum would be able to still make a product(just wouldn't be able to count on sole access).
Having played a number of videos off of the internet, I can honestly say that even with four different media player systems that there is both an underlying video system and differences between players.
I don't normally notice when WMP borks something up, because I normally use mPlayer. mPlayer won't play it, half the time I can get one of the others to play it.
All I can do is shrug. And I refuse to install quicktime on my computer.
500 minutes a year = 8 hours, or $160 a year if you value your time at $20/hour.
You'd have to value your time at ~$80/hour to make it worth taking the toll road in that case.
Still, in many areas the toll road chops substantially more off the commute than 10 minutes each way.
This is one of the reasons that I really wish someplace was seriously looking at installing a PRT system.
Everybody can get individual cars, it's demand based and non-stop so it can compete well with the speed of an automobile.
Heck, in some rather congested areas it'd probably be faster.
Faster *AND* able to safely read a book or do other work during the trip? Bonus! Even if you'd probably end up driving to a concentrator lot from the suburbs, at least initially.
Given that they were suffering crashes with the machines, they might be able to pursue it on a basis of the machines not meeting reliability standards, but that would indeed depend on the contract.
As much as I'd like to see the state return the machines and stop paying(or even demand a refund), it's likely not possible for the reason you state.
Paper ballots are for luddites and a complete sham.
There's a huge difference though between punch-card ballots and optical scan(paper) ballets.
So far, every time somebody pops up talking about how bad paper ballets are they bring up hanging chads -
Pure Electronic voting isn't ready for real world use, in my and many other's opinions. Optical scanning is a mature technology though, and you can always go back and count by hand if necessary.
There, if the bubble or dash or whatever isn't completely filled in, I'd have to wonder how much the voter really cared about that vote.
One thing that got me was them talking about how the touch-screen voting allowed true anonymous voting by the blind. I'm curious as to how that works, given that a blind person won't be able to tell one 'button' from another on a touch screen. Maybe something along the line of a headset saying 'touch right side of screen for Bush, left side for Gore'? Then 'You have selected X, to confirm, press near bottom of screen'.
Modern vehicles make it harder for vehicles to get out of tune, and when they do it alerts the driver, but comparing a pre-cat '60s car in good shape with a modern one will not result in a difference of that magnatude.
an '85 emits almost 38 times as much CO than a '01
Just one example.
I agree on the out of tune part. Basically, I was stating something from an old study that said that getting rid of $500 junkers would do more to reduce pollution than upping car standards again.
That's why it's so much dirtier in CA today than the '70s? The cost diffrence of all emissions gear is probably less than the required airbags. Perhaps you should also complain about safety features killing people because they make people drive old cars more.
Polluting or not, safe or not, you can only keep a car rolling for so long before it becomes cheaper to buy a newer one. And my point would be that a modern car without airbags would still be safer than one from the '70s.
Basically, I'm arguing that any pollution reduction program should look at multiple factors - one being that a softer standard met by more people can be better than a stricter standard followed by fewer.
Cheney's a classic case of the wrong load for the job, or why birdshot in a self defense case is stupid.
Somebody pulls a knife on me, I'm pulling a gun, and not because I generally don't carry a knife.
Note to all Muggers, Burglars, Robbers out there: Birdshot is a GREAT round for your needs! Pick the highest gauge possible - #20 is much better than #12.
Good catch. Yes. Basic Law would definitely be part of the course, along with the basics of criminal/civil courts. Heck, some areas might do well with some practical rules for avoiding a beatdown during interactions with police.
Honestly enough, I think that a course like that would be more useful in some areas than calculus, history of music, etc...
Yes, Did you miss the second sentence in that paragraph?
For an admitably limited value of 'trained'. I'm no EMT, but I am trained on stuff like clearing airways, immobilizing broken limbs, handling eye wounds, CPR, bleeding, tourniquet, etc...
It's all about limiting damage until the real medics can get there. Or, if the area is dangerous, getting the casualty out of the area to the medic.
, then the fact that you are discouraged from helping others in need
False, as others have noted, we have good samaritarian laws to protect you if you choose to help during an emergency. In addition, a number of states have mandatory stop rules. I've been late to work a couple times for stopping to respond - and I've never been dinged for it, instead I've been congratulated.
There were some problems with lawsuits during the worst of our sue-crazy phase, that's the reason for the laws. Fortunately, I think that we have the crazy lawsuits much more in control than we used to.
Heck, you noted that you are living in Australia - another poster talked about an incident involving a female and CPR - she sued because the performer exposed her breasts to be able to perform CPR, and won.