I once did some contract work for a company where the Q&A and testing process took a minimum of two weeks for the most trivial changes, and where the admins on the production servers refused to deploy things like security patches without a testing period that ran close to a month. The devs there had a hundred tricks for sneaking their code into production, and linking production code to the development servers in an attempt to meet their productivity goals.
China and Canada have more responsible central banking policies that didn't dump trillions into their economies. China has been tightening up for years now while Bernanke keeps our inflation high and interest low.
Look at Japan and the decade of stagnation... same as what we have now... near zero interest rate failing to cause anything but recession and stagnation. You can't keep dumping heroin into the veins of the economy forever... eventually the high tapers into a crappy tolerance and stagnating come down.
The intellectual basis of all economics rely on rationality of actors, Keynesianism included.
Stupid Keynesian tricks like increasing inflation above the savings rate of return rely on nominally rational actors to spend all their money and go into debt to avoid the penalty of saving money.
Unfortunately for the central planners, the American public has even more foresight than the Keynesians figure, and is willing to take the short term penalty of inflation demurrage in order to have enough savings to not get caught naked in the next Keynesian bubble collapse.
In other words, the above research points towards falsifying the primary economic ideology that has been used to govern America since Reagan. This is no small matter.
No, it doesn't. It starts with a basic assumption that we make irrational economic decisions. You are begging the question.
"Rationality" is based on personal, usually unknowable, factors. It's impossible to prove or disprove the rationality of an economic decision since there's no way that you can take psychological factors, wants and needs into account, some of which may not even be fully known to the subject.
Commercial on discovery channel: "Do you have ideas to solve the energy crisis?"
This is typical... academic scientists inventing "crisis" when there is none. There is no energy crisis. If we wanted more energy, we'd produce it.
Sure, oil is getting less EROI lately... and at some point in the future (in maybe 20-30 years), it'll break even, and then oil will no longer be a net energy source, but rather, something we must pay energy into to extract. But that's not a crisis.
We haven't built new nuclear plants in decades. We have coal coming out of our ass, even though it's nasty and dirty, it's energy that's there if we need it.
Wind and solar have long term positive EROI. All in all, there's no crisis. Sure, things are going to have to change slightly in the next 50-100 years... but that's a given. The human race is excellent at solving problems.
It's as if most academic scientists are so incredibly cynical that they can't envision that humanity will find solutions to problems without being forced to do so by some kind of gunpoint government intervention, which of course was never required in the past, but somehow is necessary this time around. The politicians love this attitude and foster it however they can through grants to scientists that most demonstrate their willingness to toe the government intervention line.
Ultimately the academic scientists are employees of the government. As long as that is the case, nothing they say can be taken seriously unless it's confirmed by scientists that don't have massive governmental conflicts of interest.
It's not unreasonable that the driver has given up on the brakes. From the accounts I read, the drivers usually fight the engine with the brakes until the brake pads are so hot as to be completely ineffective.
Most people don't understand brake temperature and brake fade unless they've driven something larger than a normal car.
The driver might give up on trying the brakes after the brake fade and focus on steering alone. Obviously these people that have these accidents have fallen into some kind of hopeless submission or they would try things like shifting into neutral... it's not unreasonable that someone who has given up enough to not even try to kill the engine or shift to have also given up on the brakes.
I don't disagree that these are all somewhat reasonable actions to try if all else failed. However...
Cutting the ignition won't destroy the engine. It can lock the steering if they turn the key all the way back though, which is why it's not generally recommended.
Shifting into park at speed is the same as shifting into neutral except the parking pawl will be skipping on top of its slot making a fast clicking noise. When you hit under 5mph or so the car would slam to a halt or the parking pawl would disintegrate.
Shifting into low gear won't happen in a modern auto transmission at speed. They won't lock into 2 until you are under 50mph or so.
But yeah, there's plenty they could have tried instead of focusing on praying. I guess that's what happens when you think an imaginary man is going to save you.
4 cameras stuck together don't (easily) give you higher resolution.
Think about it. If they all had the same lens and pointed in the same direction, all the pixels would be the same so you'd have no additional information.
If you could narrow the fields of view so that they didn't overlap so much, you could get higher resolution at a certain distance. But then you are stuck at a certain distance... if the subject moves closer you start to lose pieces and if they move farther you lose resolution.
What you might be able to do though is operate 4 cameras at say 7fps at super high resolution and then interleave the results to get smooth video. To do it right you'd need to hack some kind of time sync signal to keep them interleaved though.
(If anyone does this at least give me a shout out for the idea hehe)
I think you mean "because they no longer have 98% market share of browsers".
At this point IE is a minority browser. I haven't tested any web site I've developed in the last 5 years in IE. It's just not worth the time to develop for a broken and ancient browser like IE.
It's just a practical observation... a lot of people are going to be using something that's going to be very exploitable very soon. I don't get the feeling that the summary is implying any kind of moral imperative.
I guess you are also pissed off when Expedia buys a block of hotel room reservations to resell on their site?
They aren't "artificially inflating" the price if people are willing to pay that price. They are just making sure that the people who want the seats the most (i.e. are willing to pay the most) actually get them. This is indeed how the market insures the most efficient allocation.
Slashdot Mirror
The link seems to be broken.
I once did some contract work for a company where the Q&A and testing process took a minimum of two weeks for the most trivial changes, and where the admins on the production servers refused to deploy things like security patches without a testing period that ran close to a month. The devs there had a hundred tricks for sneaking their code into production, and linking production code to the development servers in an attempt to meet their productivity goals.
Fucking nightmare.
Wow you worked for Linden Lab?
China and Canada have more responsible central banking policies that didn't dump trillions into their economies. China has been tightening up for years now while Bernanke keeps our inflation high and interest low.
Look at Japan and the decade of stagnation... same as what we have now... near zero interest rate failing to cause anything but recession and stagnation. You can't keep dumping heroin into the veins of the economy forever... eventually the high tapers into a crappy tolerance and stagnating come down.
What our economy needs is a few years in rehab.
Krugmanesque hyperkeynesianism might as well be considered Marxist.
The intellectual basis of all economics rely on rationality of actors, Keynesianism included.
Stupid Keynesian tricks like increasing inflation above the savings rate of return rely on nominally rational actors to spend all their money and go into debt to avoid the penalty of saving money.
Unfortunately for the central planners, the American public has even more foresight than the Keynesians figure, and is willing to take the short term penalty of inflation demurrage in order to have enough savings to not get caught naked in the next Keynesian bubble collapse.
Of course Krugman knows better than you how to spend your own money.
How dare you question the wisdom of Keynesians.
In other words, the above research points towards falsifying the primary economic ideology that has been used to govern America since Reagan. This is no small matter.
No, it doesn't. It starts with a basic assumption that we make irrational economic decisions. You are begging the question.
"Rationality" is based on personal, usually unknowable, factors. It's impossible to prove or disprove the rationality of an economic decision since there's no way that you can take psychological factors, wants and needs into account, some of which may not even be fully known to the subject.
It's because we all "dated" our wives through the Internet.
BP is just the liberals' whipping boy right now. They are riding it as hard as they can to drive hits to their worthless whiny blogs.
activist journalism....
Is that kind of like "consensual bestiality"?
I think it varies from car to car.
As someone said the ones with a button to release the key I think only lock with the button press.
"legitimate planning and steering"
What an oxymoron. Call me when any government serves any legitimate interest other than the people that bought and paid for them.
Commercial on discovery channel: "Do you have ideas to solve the energy crisis?"
This is typical... academic scientists inventing "crisis" when there is none. There is no energy crisis. If we wanted more energy, we'd produce it.
Sure, oil is getting less EROI lately... and at some point in the future (in maybe 20-30 years), it'll break even, and then oil will no longer be a net energy source, but rather, something we must pay energy into to extract. But that's not a crisis.
We haven't built new nuclear plants in decades. We have coal coming out of our ass, even though it's nasty and dirty, it's energy that's there if we need it.
Wind and solar have long term positive EROI. All in all, there's no crisis. Sure, things are going to have to change slightly in the next 50-100 years... but that's a given. The human race is excellent at solving problems.
It's as if most academic scientists are so incredibly cynical that they can't envision that humanity will find solutions to problems without being forced to do so by some kind of gunpoint government intervention, which of course was never required in the past, but somehow is necessary this time around. The politicians love this attitude and foster it however they can through grants to scientists that most demonstrate their willingness to toe the government intervention line.
Ultimately the academic scientists are employees of the government. As long as that is the case, nothing they say can be taken seriously unless it's confirmed by scientists that don't have massive governmental conflicts of interest.
That's an interesting dynamic I hadn't thought of.
I guess a band might be able to work out something where they give out tickets with welfare checks if that really is their target demographic.
It's not unreasonable that the driver has given up on the brakes. From the accounts I read, the drivers usually fight the engine with the brakes until the brake pads are so hot as to be completely ineffective.
Most people don't understand brake temperature and brake fade unless they've driven something larger than a normal car.
The driver might give up on trying the brakes after the brake fade and focus on steering alone. Obviously these people that have these accidents have fallen into some kind of hopeless submission or they would try things like shifting into neutral... it's not unreasonable that someone who has given up enough to not even try to kill the engine or shift to have also given up on the brakes.
I don't disagree that these are all somewhat reasonable actions to try if all else failed. However...
Cutting the ignition won't destroy the engine. It can lock the steering if they turn the key all the way back though, which is why it's not generally recommended.
Shifting into park at speed is the same as shifting into neutral except the parking pawl will be skipping on top of its slot making a fast clicking noise. When you hit under 5mph or so the car would slam to a halt or the parking pawl would disintegrate.
Shifting into low gear won't happen in a modern auto transmission at speed. They won't lock into 2 until you are under 50mph or so.
But yeah, there's plenty they could have tried instead of focusing on praying. I guess that's what happens when you think an imaginary man is going to save you.
4 cameras stuck together don't (easily) give you higher resolution.
Think about it. If they all had the same lens and pointed in the same direction, all the pixels would be the same so you'd have no additional information.
If you could narrow the fields of view so that they didn't overlap so much, you could get higher resolution at a certain distance. But then you are stuck at a certain distance... if the subject moves closer you start to lose pieces and if they move farther you lose resolution.
What you might be able to do though is operate 4 cameras at say 7fps at super high resolution and then interleave the results to get smooth video. To do it right you'd need to hack some kind of time sync signal to keep them interleaved though.
(If anyone does this at least give me a shout out for the idea hehe)
I think you mean "because they no longer have 98% market share of browsers".
At this point IE is a minority browser. I haven't tested any web site I've developed in the last 5 years in IE. It's just not worth the time to develop for a broken and ancient browser like IE.
It's just a practical observation... a lot of people are going to be using something that's going to be very exploitable very soon. I don't get the feeling that the summary is implying any kind of moral imperative.
Is it 3G and does it have the wifis?
Nevermind, I found them, under "Ideas". No wonder Google hasn't given out any money, the ideas are really terrible.
"Create a single world bank or supra-national currency, uniform rules and transparent public accounting"
Oh yeah, that's a great fucking idea.
Where are the 16 finalists listed at? I don't see them mentioned anywhere on the google site for this.
The file or lack thereof is irrelevant, it's that you added an extra newline at the end. echo -n suppresses the newline.
It's not really a mystery... the thermite-like skin plus the hydrogen taken together were pretty flammable, even in the Mythbuster's tests.
The Mythbuster's did largely debunk the idea that it was primarily the skin alone burning, since their skin-only tests were not very spectacular.
I guess you are also pissed off when Expedia buys a block of hotel room reservations to resell on their site?
They aren't "artificially inflating" the price if people are willing to pay that price. They are just making sure that the people who want the seats the most (i.e. are willing to pay the most) actually get them. This is indeed how the market insures the most efficient allocation.