they need to be able to treat you like all the other violent protestors because you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, its that simple. its an "us vs them" mentality that is doing nothing but growing between the police and the public.
that's a very good point, almost entirely invalidated by the EULA of "you don't own the software, you've purchased access to it" if that didn't stand up in court then modifying the DRM wouldn't be illegal (hell, modifying the software wouldn't be illegal).
Don't get me wrong, i don't think it should be this way, but that's the way it is.
4 machines pay for themselves if running for 24 hours a day at optimal capacity with no faults, could, theoretically pay for themselves in a year or so. and that is certainly what our sales reps used to tell our future clients.
OR, a casheer that pays itself back in the first week, is much more flexible and fault tolerant and has a higher return on investment in the short and medium term.
no, the machines do take brakes (they aren't being used 24 x 7), don't work from open to close without significant human intervention, and do indeed take days of to get things repaired and replaced. this is the same with all robots.
a 24 hour store needs 168 hours per week in labor (not counting someone to cover breaks)
a 24 hour store in Australia is almost always manned by 1 or 2 staff, who also pack the shelves, order stock, do receiving, sweep the floor, assist customers etc, so a 24 hour store is a bad comparison example. 1 machine would be enough, but again, its wasted funds as a large amount of time the staff are manning the shop is idle time anyway and largely to supervise the customers if there are any.
i'll try and be clearer. 4 machines can do the volume of work that paying a full time employee can (that is, full time hours), however those 4 machines also need a staff member to supervise their function (although 1 staff member can supervise close to 10 machines). and having something wrong with 1 out of 8 machines is pretty typical as there are a lot moving parts and monkeys are hardly a gentle species. so that's a minimum of 9 machines working full time to have a net gain of 1 staff member.
maintenance on 9 machines is more than the $15k a year the staff member is probably worth, and the staff can go and collect trollies when its quiet, instead of just collecting dust.
for a 24 hour store to purchase just one device (which will require supervision anyway) for $30k + $5k maintenance before any work is done for them, compared to paying someone $500 for every week they show up to work. if you sell out, you're not automatically down $30k to someone who is going to tear out your infrastructure and replace it with their own anyway because back office systems aren't compatible with the competitors register systems. Turnover for your typical mom and pop store isn't really enough to justify spending over $30k + $5k ongoing costs for a machine that's slower and less flexible than existing staff, and with a value that depreciates, as a long term solution to staffing.
self-checkout is a false economy anyway. you simply can't get the velocity through them that you could with a single cashier, they cost more in maintenance and upkeep (an array of 4 self checkouts has the performance equivalent to 1 cashier), but the self checkout system costs about $30k per unit, then with ongoing support costs and maintenance. it will take a good 10 years before the self checkout makes money back for the company (and by the 10 years, they will need to be replaced to maintain the competitive edge anyway.)
Self checkouts are a convenience to your customers, not suppose to increase the bottom dollar. but it means people are more likely to pick up pregnancy tests in your supermarket then driving for 15miles out to a gas station so they don't have to face someone they know, it also gives the impression that wait times are less (waiting until interaction is less, but total time spent at shops tends to be higher, which also tends to influence how much you purchase.).
source: myself, i work in retail supporting the machines.
i never used proxies, mostly because i do go through and read the license and user agreement, realize that it offers no real protection (as they specifically state in the user agreement that they will hand over info to the authorities and maintain logs for x amount of days and keep IP access logs Indefinably as required).
Proxies are fine if your trying to hide stuff from your local administrator or spouse, but for anything you want to hid from "the man" then make sure the guys you are hiding through don't pay taxes.
i agree, hindsight makes this sort of prediction look a lot easier than it actually is. But it also wouldn't surprise me if there was a flair-up of news (or particular type of news) that sets a pre-cursor to the naked ape ignoring authority. So definantly worth the effort, but I wouldn't be holding my breath for an accurate prediction system that's better than even a basic application of common sense just yet.
or, much more likely they inherited opportunities that aren't afforded to others. Once you have an advantage (ie money for the rich), then its prudent to keep on using your advantage to leverage yourself some more advantage... (ie, it's a lot easier to make money when you already have some).
if they use that money to affect politics in ways that the majority are against, then the working class are already at a disadvantage as they can't afford to compete in the same domain.
CEOs should not make decisions based on their wife's occupation... mainly because it is going to be largely emotional...
well, IMO yes and no. VIA get the benefits of a reduced chance of being attacked or dragged down by HTC (/ support / insider knowledge), in exchange for getting involved with battles that HTC get themselves into. i doubt the VIA CEO is taking the choice lightly regardless, but improving relations with a client/business partner based on emotion isn't necessarily a bad thing.
It being emotional decision is largely how the world works anyway and investments / companies aren't any different.
I don't understand the fixation on electric vehicles that require re-charging.
IMO, Nuclear powered vehicles. Completely doable (ships / submarines for example) huge energy density, you can build them as "battery packs". and they last 14+ years before you need to recharge (replace the fuel).
the biggest hurdles are power to weight ratio of the engine, it takes about 20kg of matter (& 0.9kg of fuel) to produce about 140W safely... if you had an array of 10 (200kg worth), then that's about half of the power output from your wall socket, in comparison the engine in your car weighs about the same and produces about 100x the amount of energy, it however can't do that for 14 years straight before you have to refuel.
the fuel itself produces about 700W of thermal energy per kg for at least 14 years, its a matter of converting that energy into momentum efficiently. you can make the fuel run hotter, but that becomes more dangerous and the energy tapers off earlier.
actually, you're largely what you drink (hydrogen & oxygen), followed by what you breath (oxygen, carbon and nitrogen) which makes up 96% of what you are..
Why are you comparing nuclear energy to a "new" technology? It's been around more than half a century and it's still expensive, filthy and dangerous.
well, first off, heat engines were around a lot earlier than the internal combustion engine, and we have been turning oils into heat and gas for a lot longer than turning heavy rocks into heat. unless your "new" technology is win turbines or solar power? in which the technology has been available somewhat for the last 100 years?
secondly, your description of this "new" technology could be applied to any power plant.
expensive : is a relative term, expensive compared to what? because the biggest cost of nuclear power is in regulation and administrative fees, but cost per fuel weight is very very low. filthy : nuclear is a clean power source, so i don't know why you think its filthy? and as the "filth" is so highly concentrated, its a lot easier to manage. dangerous : deaths per kw for nuclear in averaged over the last 10 years.. "0", deaths per KW per year for coal? 4000.
like whats found in the center of (almost?) every galaxy? yes, yes indeed... not all that matter gets turned into a black hole though, the left overs get turned into stars & planets.
The evidence is so incredibly lopsided that AGW is incontrovertible.
the evidence for Newtonian gravity was so overwhelming until we actually worked out what was going on, and even now our model doesn't match the observable universe perfectly.
there is a lot of evidence supporting human caused AGW, and as a skeptic i've looked over a fair share of evidence (instead of just listening to the headlines) and come to the conclusion that human caused AGW is a very "fitting explanation to the phenomenon of increasing temperatures on earth". this doesn't make it right, this just makes it the best fit.
saying others shouldn't debate the validity of AGW is not science, it's politics.
FYI, i believe in human caused AGW to some extent. however the evidence is far from conclusive, notably how we had unpredicted negative fluctuations in weather after 2008, which gets blamed on current sulphide production in china. Even though current sulphide production is less than what it was in 1970 when the temperature of the planet started rising rapidly. I think its these sort of anomalies that won't lead to an accurate prediction of future events, however i think the idea behind human accelerated global warming is mostly accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
McDonalds does own the idea of a hamburger if that hamburger is
wtf? no they don't, food isn't subject to copyright or patents. in fact I'm pretty sure its specifically excluded.
but, then that would be freedom of association,
they need to be able to treat you like all the other violent protestors because you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, its that simple. its an "us vs them" mentality that is doing nothing but growing between the police and the public.
always has been though, hasn't it?
What The Fuck... what is wrong with you America? how did you let it get so bad?
or company B has paid company A some money to ensure that companys B spam mail always makes it to the destination.
that's a very good point, almost entirely invalidated by the EULA of "you don't own the software, you've purchased access to it" if that didn't stand up in court then modifying the DRM wouldn't be illegal (hell, modifying the software wouldn't be illegal).
Don't get me wrong, i don't think it should be this way, but that's the way it is.
4 machines pay for themselves if running for 24 hours a day at optimal capacity with no faults, could, theoretically pay for themselves in a year or so. and that is certainly what our sales reps used to tell our future clients.
OR, a casheer that pays itself back in the first week, is much more flexible and fault tolerant and has a higher return on investment in the short and medium term.
no, the machines do take brakes (they aren't being used 24 x 7), don't work from open to close without significant human intervention, and do indeed take days of to get things repaired and replaced. this is the same with all robots.
a 24 hour store needs 168 hours per week in labor (not counting someone to cover breaks)
a 24 hour store in Australia is almost always manned by 1 or 2 staff, who also pack the shelves, order stock, do receiving, sweep the floor, assist customers etc, so a 24 hour store is a bad comparison example. 1 machine would be enough, but again, its wasted funds as a large amount of time the staff are manning the shop is idle time anyway and largely to supervise the customers if there are any.
i'll try and be clearer. 4 machines can do the volume of work that paying a full time employee can (that is, full time hours), however those 4 machines also need a staff member to supervise their function (although 1 staff member can supervise close to 10 machines). and having something wrong with 1 out of 8 machines is pretty typical as there are a lot moving parts and monkeys are hardly a gentle species. so that's a minimum of 9 machines working full time to have a net gain of 1 staff member.
maintenance on 9 machines is more than the $15k a year the staff member is probably worth, and the staff can go and collect trollies when its quiet, instead of just collecting dust.
for a 24 hour store to purchase just one device (which will require supervision anyway) for $30k + $5k maintenance before any work is done for them, compared to paying someone $500 for every week they show up to work. if you sell out, you're not automatically down $30k to someone who is going to tear out your infrastructure and replace it with their own anyway because back office systems aren't compatible with the competitors register systems. Turnover for your typical mom and pop store isn't really enough to justify spending over $30k + $5k ongoing costs for a machine that's slower and less flexible than existing staff, and with a value that depreciates, as a long term solution to staffing.
self-checkout is a false economy anyway. you simply can't get the velocity through them that you could with a single cashier, they cost more in maintenance and upkeep (an array of 4 self checkouts has the performance equivalent to 1 cashier), but the self checkout system costs about $30k per unit, then with ongoing support costs and maintenance. it will take a good 10 years before the self checkout makes money back for the company (and by the 10 years, they will need to be replaced to maintain the competitive edge anyway.)
Self checkouts are a convenience to your customers, not suppose to increase the bottom dollar. but it means people are more likely to pick up pregnancy tests in your supermarket then driving for 15miles out to a gas station so they don't have to face someone they know, it also gives the impression that wait times are less (waiting until interaction is less, but total time spent at shops tends to be higher, which also tends to influence how much you purchase.).
source: myself, i work in retail supporting the machines.
exactly, 1 thing that humans are incredible at, is being flexible. Robots won't be able to compete with that for a very long time.
and IT & maintaining the robot infrastructure take over the world! I knew I was in the right industry.
i never used proxies, mostly because i do go through and read the license and user agreement, realize that it offers no real protection (as they specifically state in the user agreement that they will hand over info to the authorities and maintain logs for x amount of days and keep IP access logs Indefinably as required).
Proxies are fine if your trying to hide stuff from your local administrator or spouse, but for anything you want to hid from "the man" then make sure the guys you are hiding through don't pay taxes.
i agree, hindsight makes this sort of prediction look a lot easier than it actually is. But it also wouldn't surprise me if there was a flair-up of news (or particular type of news) that sets a pre-cursor to the naked ape ignoring authority. So definantly worth the effort, but I wouldn't be holding my breath for an accurate prediction system that's better than even a basic application of common sense just yet.
algorithms - almost as useful as common sense
or, much more likely they inherited opportunities that aren't afforded to others. Once you have an advantage (ie money for the rich), then its prudent to keep on using your advantage to leverage yourself some more advantage... (ie, it's a lot easier to make money when you already have some).
if they use that money to affect politics in ways that the majority are against, then the working class are already at a disadvantage as they can't afford to compete in the same domain.
It has nothing to do with intelligence.
CEOs should not make decisions based on their wife's occupation... mainly because it is going to be largely emotional...
well, IMO yes and no. VIA get the benefits of a reduced chance of being attacked or dragged down by HTC (/ support / insider knowledge), in exchange for getting involved with battles that HTC get themselves into. i doubt the VIA CEO is taking the choice lightly regardless, but improving relations with a client/business partner based on emotion isn't necessarily a bad thing.
It being emotional decision is largely how the world works anyway and investments / companies aren't any different.
60 nano seconds is huge though, and consistent over 15000 tests,
why are you breaking physics.... WHY?!
I don't understand the fixation on electric vehicles that require re-charging.
IMO, Nuclear powered vehicles. Completely doable (ships / submarines for example) huge energy density, you can build them as "battery packs". and they last 14+ years before you need to recharge (replace the fuel).
the biggest hurdles are power to weight ratio of the engine, it takes about 20kg of matter (& 0.9kg of fuel) to produce about 140W safely... if you had an array of 10 (200kg worth), then that's about half of the power output from your wall socket, in comparison the engine in your car weighs about the same and produces about 100x the amount of energy, it however can't do that for 14 years straight before you have to refuel.
the fuel itself produces about 700W of thermal energy per kg for at least 14 years, its a matter of converting that energy into momentum efficiently. you can make the fuel run hotter, but that becomes more dangerous and the energy tapers off earlier.
actually, you're largely what you drink (hydrogen & oxygen), followed by what you breath (oxygen, carbon and nitrogen) which makes up 96% of what you are..
your mildly interesting reply was ruined by you're own faggotry.
fagot.
just because something is radioactive, doesn't make it not "clean".
Why are you comparing nuclear energy to a "new" technology? It's been around more than half a century and it's still expensive, filthy and dangerous.
well, first off, heat engines were around a lot earlier than the internal combustion engine, and we have been turning oils into heat and gas for a lot longer than turning heavy rocks into heat. unless your "new" technology is win turbines or solar power? in which the technology has been available somewhat for the last 100 years?
secondly, your description of this "new" technology could be applied to any power plant.
expensive : is a relative term, expensive compared to what? because the biggest cost of nuclear power is in regulation and administrative fees, but cost per fuel weight is very very low.
filthy : nuclear is a clean power source, so i don't know why you think its filthy? and as the "filth" is so highly concentrated, its a lot easier to manage.
dangerous : deaths per kw for nuclear in averaged over the last 10 years.. "0", deaths per KW per year for coal? 4000.
like whats found in the center of (almost?) every galaxy? yes, yes indeed... not all that matter gets turned into a black hole though, the left overs get turned into stars & planets.
second to get their bearings straight
hehe, ISWYDT
The evidence is so incredibly lopsided that AGW is incontrovertible.
the evidence for Newtonian gravity was so overwhelming until we actually worked out what was going on, and even now our model doesn't match the observable universe perfectly.
there is a lot of evidence supporting human caused AGW, and as a skeptic i've looked over a fair share of evidence (instead of just listening to the headlines) and come to the conclusion that human caused AGW is a very "fitting explanation to the phenomenon of increasing temperatures on earth". this doesn't make it right, this just makes it the best fit.
saying others shouldn't debate the validity of AGW is not science, it's politics.
FYI, i believe in human caused AGW to some extent. however the evidence is far from conclusive, notably how we had unpredicted negative fluctuations in weather after 2008, which gets blamed on current sulphide production in china. Even though current sulphide production is less than what it was in 1970 when the temperature of the planet started rising rapidly. I think its these sort of anomalies that won't lead to an accurate prediction of future events, however i think the idea behind human accelerated global warming is mostly accurate.