One of the pictures in TFA shows the back panel... it looks like, in addition to the obligatory power, ethernet, and hdmi, there's what looks like 4 USB jacks, so I think there's hope.
I could understand advocating "choose rust instead of C for new projects" or "if you are considering rewriting major portions of a C project then consider redoing all or part of it in rust."
Then it's quite convenient that that's actually what he's saying (especially the latter).
sweet:) Yeah, heat pumps add to the efficiency significantly. My current home has one but not a geo-return type. If/when I actually own a chunk of land I'll look into that approach. Thanks!
In a thermodynamic sense you're right, pretty much all the energy becomes heat, as desired. But the electricity to generate X BTUs has historically cost more than the fossil fuel to generate X BTUs, so it's not the economically efficient choice.
It's in the contract that the contract may change at the whim of congress (section 9: "I understand that I cannot change these laws but that Congress may change these laws, or pass new laws, at any time that may affect this agreement, and that I will be subject to those laws and any changes they make to this agreement." and particularly 9b: "Laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change without notice to me. Such changes may affect my status, pay, allowances, benefits, and responsibilities as a member of the Armed Forces REGARDLESS of the provisions of this enlistment/reenlistment document"). I wouldn't be happy about promising someone a 5 year job and then having to cut them off early, but if they knew about the possibility up front, chose to accept it, and had meaningful other options they could have gone with, I wouldn't feel that I'd done something immoral.
How do rent and/or mortgage payments fit in to that "everything is labor or profit" model? I'm willing to believe that it does fit in, I just don't quite see how.
My understanding from reading some of Zillow's statements about their intent is that they're doing it because they think not doing so may open them up to suits from the actual copyright owners of the photos (since Zillow's license does not allow them to allow others to use the photos). Essentially it's a proactive due diligence kind of thing. If that's actually the case, they wouldn't mind if it got ruled as fair use, as long as it keeps them off the hook.
Eh. It needs to capture a crapload of stuff to have much of a lifespan. A grain of salt is approximately 5.85e-5g, or 5.85e-8kg, which is on the order of one planck mass... which means a hole with that mass is going to poof in approximately one planck time (8e-40s), which (since it's not moving fast) means it's not going to find much to eat in a vacuum chamber before it goes. And one generated by particle collision isn't going to have even that much mass, so it won't last as long.
As to risk-vs-reward, "The benefits seem insufficiently urgent to justify the risk, however small" translates pretty directly to "benefits are less than risk as risk approaches zero", which means you see zero benefits. I disagree:)
if it's very low mass, is it going to be able to get more than one negative charge into gravitational capture range against the mutual repulsion between the negatives? It seems more likely that it'll get one in, and then it'll be neutral and won't have anything but gravity going for it anymore.
He didn't say it was bad as in unpleasant to watch, he said it was low quality with (I presume) the meaning that it is cumbersome to watch - unskippable ads/banners/previews, not (typically) playable with easily portable gear so it's locked to one location, etc. Increasing the convenience would increase the value and hence the probability that they'd pay instead of pirating. Lowering the price would also do so, as it would again bring the price and the value closer together. Reducing the DRM would allow the convenience to rise and the price to lower (some... not sure how much), which would be a significant boost to purchase probability.
As to entitlement... assume they're not entitled. Does this fact actually reduce their probability of pirating? Does it make it easier for Hollywood to stop them? Does it, in fact, affect the situation measurably at all, other than being the sole justification Hollywood has for all the DRM they're using?
So you are asserting that all humans are rational actors? I think I need to request proof.
Of course, even if they are, your assertion that the rational action is to do nothing is gated by "if the standard of living provided by UBI is sufficient to someone" and "the value of not working is greater than the marginal value of getting a job", which are both pretty strong assertions to apply to, well, everyone. Given that the scenario you're replying to is that the provided standard of living is some food and a roof (and presumably some clothes), well... I don't think I know anyone for whom that would really be "sufficient" (though I do know some for whom it would be an improvement), so I would have to say that I don't think I know anyone for whom the rational action would be to subsist on that and do nothing else. It certainly wouldn't be for me; I like my toys.
That'd be nice, but that's not what this case was about; the question they were asked to rule on was "is it really okay for them to sue us in Delaware even though we're incorporated in Indiana?" and they said "no, actually, not so much."
Give it time. Once there's a few contradictory rulings between districts they'll get to start in on bullshit patents (but even then, I expect the most likely approach is going to be "given what we've seen come out of PTO, the court should no longer just blindly assume that the examiner actually did their job with regard to obviousness and/or prior art", which should go a long way to leveling the field between the owner of a junk patent and the defendant).
I thought debt was the difference between consumption and income, not the difference between consumption and savings (which I had understood to be both categories of "spending"). Can you explain your statement?
Slashdot Mirror
One of the pictures in TFA shows the back panel... it looks like, in addition to the obligatory power, ethernet, and hdmi, there's what looks like 4 USB jacks, so I think there's hope.
I could understand advocating "choose rust instead of C for new projects" or "if you are considering rewriting major portions of a C project then consider redoing all or part of it in rust."
Then it's quite convenient that that's actually what he's saying (especially the latter).
The debit card from my credit union is not embossed; this makes it easier for them to print them on demand.
True, many do... but a million btus of heat in my area costs about $13 using gas or $34 using electricity (directly, not heat pump).
sweet :) Yeah, heat pumps add to the efficiency significantly. My current home has one but not a geo-return type. If/when I actually own a chunk of land I'll look into that approach. Thanks!
In a thermodynamic sense you're right, pretty much all the energy becomes heat, as desired. But the electricity to generate X BTUs has historically cost more than the fossil fuel to generate X BTUs, so it's not the economically efficient choice.
Apparently they think it's a tax break...
(Please note, I'm not saying it's unreasonable. But it does seem to fit the definition of "tax break".)
If it doesn't reduce their taxes, why do they care? If it does, it's a tax break.
But if we last long enough someone will eventually built a replica of the Yamato in space, just because.
It's in the contract that the contract may change at the whim of congress (section 9: "I understand that I cannot change these laws but that Congress may change these laws, or pass new laws, at any time that may affect this agreement, and that I will be subject to those laws and any changes they make to this agreement." and particularly 9b: "Laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change without notice to me. Such changes may affect my status, pay, allowances, benefits, and responsibilities as a member of the Armed Forces REGARDLESS of the provisions of this enlistment/reenlistment document"). I wouldn't be happy about promising someone a 5 year job and then having to cut them off early, but if they knew about the possibility up front, chose to accept it, and had meaningful other options they could have gone with, I wouldn't feel that I'd done something immoral.
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks!
How do rent and/or mortgage payments fit in to that "everything is labor or profit" model? I'm willing to believe that it does fit in, I just don't quite see how.
My understanding from reading some of Zillow's statements about their intent is that they're doing it because they think not doing so may open them up to suits from the actual copyright owners of the photos (since Zillow's license does not allow them to allow others to use the photos). Essentially it's a proactive due diligence kind of thing. If that's actually the case, they wouldn't mind if it got ruled as fair use, as long as it keeps them off the hook.
"not fully self-driven" -> "in no way better than a 20k $ car"... I disagree. There is room between "fully self-driven" and "nothing" that adds value.
Eh. It needs to capture a crapload of stuff to have much of a lifespan. A grain of salt is approximately 5.85e-5g, or 5.85e-8kg, which is on the order of one planck mass... which means a hole with that mass is going to poof in approximately one planck time (8e-40s), which (since it's not moving fast) means it's not going to find much to eat in a vacuum chamber before it goes. And one generated by particle collision isn't going to have even that much mass, so it won't last as long.
As to risk-vs-reward, "The benefits seem insufficiently urgent to justify the risk, however small" translates pretty directly to "benefits are less than risk as risk approaches zero", which means you see zero benefits. I disagree :)
if it's very low mass, is it going to be able to get more than one negative charge into gravitational capture range against the mutual repulsion between the negatives? It seems more likely that it'll get one in, and then it'll be neutral and won't have anything but gravity going for it anymore.
looks like about 1964, when they were supporting Barry Goldwater.
staying out of trouble != not doing the crime. Some examples.
He didn't say it was bad as in unpleasant to watch, he said it was low quality with (I presume) the meaning that it is cumbersome to watch - unskippable ads/banners/previews, not (typically) playable with easily portable gear so it's locked to one location, etc. Increasing the convenience would increase the value and hence the probability that they'd pay instead of pirating. Lowering the price would also do so, as it would again bring the price and the value closer together. Reducing the DRM would allow the convenience to rise and the price to lower (some... not sure how much), which would be a significant boost to purchase probability.
As to entitlement... assume they're not entitled. Does this fact actually reduce their probability of pirating? Does it make it easier for Hollywood to stop them? Does it, in fact, affect the situation measurably at all, other than being the sole justification Hollywood has for all the DRM they're using?
So you are asserting that all humans are rational actors? I think I need to request proof.
Of course, even if they are, your assertion that the rational action is to do nothing is gated by "if the standard of living provided by UBI is sufficient to someone" and "the value of not working is greater than the marginal value of getting a job", which are both pretty strong assertions to apply to, well, everyone. Given that the scenario you're replying to is that the provided standard of living is some food and a roof (and presumably some clothes), well... I don't think I know anyone for whom that would really be "sufficient" (though I do know some for whom it would be an improvement), so I would have to say that I don't think I know anyone for whom the rational action would be to subsist on that and do nothing else. It certainly wouldn't be for me; I like my toys.
on a per capita basis they're already ahead of us on carbon emissions. Go talk to the OPEC countries instead.
don't get in as much trouble for kicking the guy in front of you who won't stop turning on his phone
wait, is this for people who don't pay taxes or for people who receive public assistance? There's overlap, you know.
That'd be nice, but that's not what this case was about; the question they were asked to rule on was "is it really okay for them to sue us in Delaware even though we're incorporated in Indiana?" and they said "no, actually, not so much."
Give it time. Once there's a few contradictory rulings between districts they'll get to start in on bullshit patents (but even then, I expect the most likely approach is going to be "given what we've seen come out of PTO, the court should no longer just blindly assume that the examiner actually did their job with regard to obviousness and/or prior art", which should go a long way to leveling the field between the owner of a junk patent and the defendant).
I thought debt was the difference between consumption and income, not the difference between consumption and savings (which I had understood to be both categories of "spending"). Can you explain your statement?