Imagine being able to spread out headlines for the next decade:
"NSA keeps a list of KKK members" "NSA following the actions of NRA members and directors" "NSA spied on the NAACP leaders" "NSA monitored phone records of the Republican leadership of the House" "NSA monitored phone records of the Democratic leadership of the Senate" "NSA has database on transactions related to CEO offshore accounts" "NSA is actively invovled in cataloging grandmothers knitting groups - was your grandma targetted?"
We all *know* the NSA does this - they've been doing it since inception. But Ed Snowden needs a way to make a living outside of being an IT admin, so it pays for him to string this out as long as the tinfoil-hat* money keeps flowing.
*it's not paranoia if they really are watching you, but most people really don't give a shit, and the only people who do care are those with actual (or future) power who are justifiably afraid that someone will get in and use this info politically and the ones wearing tin foil hats who have a wildly inflated view of their importance.
Drop that first sentence and you've got yourself a good argument. It will never happen as long as the protestants are in control, but it's a nice idea.
The problem is that you've conflated it with the wrong reason. Mozilla needs a strong CEO, yes, however the first thing a CEO is is a manager of people. You cannot effectively manage people of mixed composition if you genuinely believe that a certain percentage of them are not deserving of basic human rights. If he was a member of the KKK, would you expect him to treat black employees equitably? If it was public knowledge, would black employees even expect him to treat them fairly (even if he did, would they believe it - knowing he was KKK)?
This will be good for creating random toys and knick knacks. The problem with 3d software for the masses is that it's technical. When you create a part for use (as opposed to a blob of toyness), holes, edges, parts have to be in a specific place. That requires math, which is beyond the reach of the average user. It's like trying to create a technical drawing with an iPad sketch program. You can make pretty pictures with your finger (okay - artists can, you can just make ugly dogs and weird looking trees), but you can't make a scaled technical drawing for fabrication.
Oh, and kickstarter is not a mainstream consumer outlet. Call me when they have the model for sale at WalMart or Staples.
The next insurance renewal will almost certainly forbid such activities. They'd be fools not to. I'm a little surprised there isn't a clause in auto insurance contracts about it (unless current laws require coverage of any passenger).
It would still work (capacitors/batteries) in the sense that it would smooth the grid loading - you would charge during low times so that you could service at high times.
Of course, that requires enough storage for buffering - which would be probably 50-60% of the total capacity charged in a day. Well, that and cables too big to handle - even at 400V, you're still talking thousands of amps - and cable diameters measured in inches.
It doesn't matter. They're dead either way; the question is how much it's worth to recover the bodies.
There are 11 million flights in the US alone every year. You claim that potentially thousands of lives could be saved, but you haven't stated how. You're presuming (1) that this crash will yield some amazing insight into flight safety that was never before considered and is easily correctable. In all likelihood it's the result of a combination of system failure and human error - not some magic force we've never considered. The chance of finding this one aircraft and the information gleaned from the wreckage to be of unique and revolutionary to the safety of air travel - something which can improve on the 0.999998 reliability of commercial aircraft (based on 2012 US statistics - 23 incidents involving fatalities for 11 million flights) - is very nearly zero.
" the only extra cost attributable to this search is a bit more fuel."
Your definition of "a bit" makes me think you must work in the government. Otherwise, you'd say shit-ton of fuel. This is way the fuck out in the middle of the ocean - nothing is close and everything they use to get close burns a huge amount of fuel to get there. Unless you compare it to, say, the fuel budget of the US Military, which one of the few places where it wouldn't seem like a lot.
You're kidding right? How come you haven't ponied up a couple hundred grand for Jet A to send out a recon plane? How about you give you give up the next month of your salary to go hunting?
Great idea...and it's already been tested an priced. Just $60,000 per aircraft for a known-working system.
With roughly 31,000 commercial passenger aircraft in use, that's about 1,800,000,000 (1.8 Billion) dollars to equip. You could mount searches for 35 lost planes for that money, and a plane goes missing (of this magnitude) once every 3-4 years. So about a 120-150 year payback period, or about 3-4x the life span of the aircraft in question.
No, because this allows the gaming of the system - it just requires that more of it be done to keep the retained profits up.
By moving the taxes away from profits, it becomes a fixed cost of operation - like every other business cost - rather than a "penalty for success" as some call it. Your electric co, water co, copier lease co., coffee supplier, and landlord don't base their fees on your profit (okay, for that last one, some do; esp. in retail and for large corporate clients - but that's the exception). Heck - even your broker charges a fee based on your volume/value, not on whether you profit from the transaction.
Interesting. Seriously - thanks for the reply and link. For reasons I can't quite fathom, I find IP law fascinating - though it's only tangentially related to my work (engineer).
"Oh, I'm sorry - I must have grabbed the wrong row." "Oh, I'm sorry - they said my seat assignment was provisional because I arrived so late, I'll find another one"
Board near the end of the boarding time and take a free center seat near the back -unless then plane is 100% full, you're golden.
On the contrary - you come up with a hypothesis and then you test to see if that hypothesis is true.
You make guesses from observations, such as "God strikes down the unworthy" and then you attempt to find worthy people and unworthy people and follow them to see whether the unworthy are striken down in supernatural events at a statistically greater rate than those who are worthy. By using a second set of scientists or clergy who are unfamiliar with your research, you can sort into various forms of unworthiness to see if there is a type bias - sexually deviant, unfaithful, unrepentant, vanity, boastfulness, and others. Your belief that certain unworthiness will result in smiting by a deity is then tested and you review your data.
You may find that God's wrath is not statistically biased towards the unrepentant sinner. Being wrong isn't a problem in science - it's just a path to being right. So, for instance, if you find that your original hypothesis that God strikes down the unworthy is not just incorrect, but backwards. If it seems the virtuous are more likely to get stricken down, and that those of greatest natural virtue are our youth, you can then present this. It may, in fact, then be used to change behavioral patterns and encourage participation in activities. The great researcher into this particular effect, Billy Joel, was instrumental in bringing this research to light, indicating in one of his more widely distributed papers "only the good die young."
Plants. Plants take in CO2 and release O2 as part of respiration. It's known that increasing CO2 spurs plant growth (there are placed you can get CO2 systems for hydroponic growth). The graph you linked shows a sawtooth graph with spikes of CO2 and then random-walk decreases over tens of thousands of years until another spike occurs. What your graph misses is the last 100 years:
"People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
Yes, it's a MIB quote, but there is insight in it - as we progress we learn more and more about our environment and our view of the universe evolves. 5000 years ago we had religion because we couldn't describe trichinosis with science; we couldn't describe most of the world - so we made up religion to keep people safe and social. We still do. If your car stops running on the highway and the fuel gauge reads empty it's not an act of God that your stranded, and if you walk into the middle of a field in a thunderstorm and get hit by lightning we don't think that you have angered God and are witnessing his wrath for your wrongdoing. But you get anything that doesn't have a rational explanation - say, a plane disappearing - and *boom* there are people thinking it may just be an act of God.
Really? (and I say that as a genuine question, not some snarky reply)
I always thought you could "make your own" from patent filings, you just couldn't sell/trade/traffic/commercialize it. So if I wanted to construct a swing in my backyard and use it in a sideways motion (with or without the Tarzan yell), such as currently under patent http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi... , I could do so without fear of repercussion, but I could not sell such a swing setup to others without violating the rights of the patent owner. Your definition of "use" would prevent such a project in my back yard.
I don't buy the auto analogy, mainly because the insurance companies have nothing to do with the suit, except though my contract with them for payment of an award. The only reason their lawyers get involved is because it's their money. I have a buffalo wireless router I purchased many years ago, and if the courts interpret "use" as you say, then I am in direct violation of several patents (since Buffalo, afaik, never paid for the patents they used)
Agreed. It's a shame we can't harness it properly. (note: it takes almost as much energy - 95% as fossil fuel - to produce a working solar collection system as that system will provide over its entire life)
Twice a day batch matching of buyers and sellers. You put in your offer, and if it matches at noon or 4 PM you get the trade. Offers are time-stamped and processed in order for priority.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine being able to spread out headlines for the next decade:
"NSA keeps a list of KKK members"
"NSA following the actions of NRA members and directors"
"NSA spied on the NAACP leaders"
"NSA monitored phone records of the Republican leadership of the House"
"NSA monitored phone records of the Democratic leadership of the Senate"
"NSA has database on transactions related to CEO offshore accounts"
"NSA is actively invovled in cataloging grandmothers knitting groups - was your grandma targetted?"
We all *know* the NSA does this - they've been doing it since inception. But Ed Snowden needs a way to make a living outside of being an IT admin, so it pays for him to string this out as long as the tinfoil-hat* money keeps flowing.
*it's not paranoia if they really are watching you, but most people really don't give a shit, and the only people who do care are those with actual (or future) power who are justifiably afraid that someone will get in and use this info politically and the ones wearing tin foil hats who have a wildly inflated view of their importance.
Drop that first sentence and you've got yourself a good argument. It will never happen as long as the protestants are in control, but it's a nice idea.
The problem is that you've conflated it with the wrong reason. Mozilla needs a strong CEO, yes, however the first thing a CEO is is a manager of people. You cannot effectively manage people of mixed composition if you genuinely believe that a certain percentage of them are not deserving of basic human rights. If he was a member of the KKK, would you expect him to treat black employees equitably? If it was public knowledge, would black employees even expect him to treat them fairly (even if he did, would they believe it - knowing he was KKK)?
This will be good for creating random toys and knick knacks. The problem with 3d software for the masses is that it's technical. When you create a part for use (as opposed to a blob of toyness), holes, edges, parts have to be in a specific place. That requires math, which is beyond the reach of the average user. It's like trying to create a technical drawing with an iPad sketch program. You can make pretty pictures with your finger (okay - artists can, you can just make ugly dogs and weird looking trees), but you can't make a scaled technical drawing for fabrication.
Oh, and kickstarter is not a mainstream consumer outlet. Call me when they have the model for sale at WalMart or Staples.
TSA doesn't give a shit. Go charter a private jet and you can skip all that silliness and they won't care. They want us to feel safe, not be safe.
FAA on the other hand will not be amused.
The next insurance renewal will almost certainly forbid such activities. They'd be fools not to. I'm a little surprised there isn't a clause in auto insurance contracts about it (unless current laws require coverage of any passenger).
It's way the fuck out there, bathed in EM radiation, and goddamned cold. Mars is right next door and practically balmy in comparison.
It would still work (capacitors/batteries) in the sense that it would smooth the grid loading - you would charge during low times so that you could service at high times.
Of course, that requires enough storage for buffering - which would be probably 50-60% of the total capacity charged in a day. Well, that and cables too big to handle - even at 400V, you're still talking thousands of amps - and cable diameters measured in inches.
It doesn't matter. They're dead either way; the question is how much it's worth to recover the bodies.
There are 11 million flights in the US alone every year. You claim that potentially thousands of lives could be saved, but you haven't stated how. You're presuming (1) that this crash will yield some amazing insight into flight safety that was never before considered and is easily correctable. In all likelihood it's the result of a combination of system failure and human error - not some magic force we've never considered. The chance of finding this one aircraft and the information gleaned from the wreckage to be of unique and revolutionary to the safety of air travel - something which can improve on the 0.999998 reliability of commercial aircraft (based on 2012 US statistics - 23 incidents involving fatalities for 11 million flights) - is very nearly zero.
This is why we can't have nice things
" the only extra cost attributable to this search is a bit more fuel."
Your definition of "a bit" makes me think you must work in the government. Otherwise, you'd say shit-ton of fuel. This is way the fuck out in the middle of the ocean - nothing is close and everything they use to get close burns a huge amount of fuel to get there. Unless you compare it to, say, the fuel budget of the US Military, which one of the few places where it wouldn't seem like a lot.
You're kidding right? How come you haven't ponied up a couple hundred grand for Jet A to send out a recon plane? How about you give you give up the next month of your salary to go hunting?
Great idea...and it's already been tested an priced. Just $60,000 per aircraft for a known-working system.
With roughly 31,000 commercial passenger aircraft in use, that's about 1,800,000,000 (1.8 Billion) dollars to equip. You could mount searches for 35 lost planes for that money, and a plane goes missing (of this magnitude) once every 3-4 years. So about a 120-150 year payback period, or about 3-4x the life span of the aircraft in question.
No, because this allows the gaming of the system - it just requires that more of it be done to keep the retained profits up.
By moving the taxes away from profits, it becomes a fixed cost of operation - like every other business cost - rather than a "penalty for success" as some call it. Your electric co, water co, copier lease co., coffee supplier, and landlord don't base their fees on your profit (okay, for that last one, some do; esp. in retail and for large corporate clients - but that's the exception). Heck - even your broker charges a fee based on your volume/value, not on whether you profit from the transaction.
Interesting. Seriously - thanks for the reply and link. For reasons I can't quite fathom, I find IP law fascinating - though it's only tangentially related to my work (engineer).
"Oh, I'm sorry - I must have grabbed the wrong row."
"Oh, I'm sorry - they said my seat assignment was provisional because I arrived so late, I'll find another one"
Board near the end of the boarding time and take a free center seat near the back -unless then plane is 100% full, you're golden.
On the contrary - you come up with a hypothesis and then you test to see if that hypothesis is true.
You make guesses from observations, such as "God strikes down the unworthy" and then you attempt to find worthy people and unworthy people and follow them to see whether the unworthy are striken down in supernatural events at a statistically greater rate than those who are worthy. By using a second set of scientists or clergy who are unfamiliar with your research, you can sort into various forms of unworthiness to see if there is a type bias - sexually deviant, unfaithful, unrepentant, vanity, boastfulness, and others. Your belief that certain unworthiness will result in smiting by a deity is then tested and you review your data.
You may find that God's wrath is not statistically biased towards the unrepentant sinner. Being wrong isn't a problem in science - it's just a path to being right. So, for instance, if you find that your original hypothesis that God strikes down the unworthy is not just incorrect, but backwards. If it seems the virtuous are more likely to get stricken down, and that those of greatest natural virtue are our youth, you can then present this. It may, in fact, then be used to change behavioral patterns and encourage participation in activities. The great researcher into this particular effect, Billy Joel, was instrumental in bringing this research to light, indicating in one of his more widely distributed papers "only the good die young."
Plants. Plants take in CO2 and release O2 as part of respiration. It's known that increasing CO2 spurs plant growth (there are placed you can get CO2 systems for hydroponic growth). The graph you linked shows a sawtooth graph with spikes of CO2 and then random-walk decreases over tens of thousands of years until another spike occurs. What your graph misses is the last 100 years:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
"People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
Yes, it's a MIB quote, but there is insight in it - as we progress we learn more and more about our environment and our view of the universe evolves. 5000 years ago we had religion because we couldn't describe trichinosis with science; we couldn't describe most of the world - so we made up religion to keep people safe and social. We still do. If your car stops running on the highway and the fuel gauge reads empty it's not an act of God that your stranded, and if you walk into the middle of a field in a thunderstorm and get hit by lightning we don't think that you have angered God and are witnessing his wrath for your wrongdoing. But you get anything that doesn't have a rational explanation - say, a plane disappearing - and *boom* there are people thinking it may just be an act of God.
Yeah, except for the fact that they all suck in comparison to a Tesla.
Really? (and I say that as a genuine question, not some snarky reply)
I always thought you could "make your own" from patent filings, you just couldn't sell/trade/traffic/commercialize it. So if I wanted to construct a swing in my backyard and use it in a sideways motion (with or without the Tarzan yell), such as currently under patent http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi... , I could do so without fear of repercussion, but I could not sell such a swing setup to others without violating the rights of the patent owner. Your definition of "use" would prevent such a project in my back yard.
I don't buy the auto analogy, mainly because the insurance companies have nothing to do with the suit, except though my contract with them for payment of an award. The only reason their lawyers get involved is because it's their money. I have a buffalo wireless router I purchased many years ago, and if the courts interpret "use" as you say, then I am in direct violation of several patents (since Buffalo, afaik, never paid for the patents they used)
OTOH, there are no natives to eat them either.
Agreed. It's a shame we can't harness it properly. (note: it takes almost as much energy - 95% as fossil fuel - to produce a working solar collection system as that system will provide over its entire life)
30 seconds?
Twice a day batch matching of buyers and sellers. You put in your offer, and if it matches at noon or 4 PM you get the trade. Offers are time-stamped and processed in order for priority.
Gross receipts tax. 2% on any receipts - profit/loss/gain - doesn't matter.
Eating rainbows and pooping butterflies, I hope. At least for a day, then, Beta will look like butterflies.