So I can go "semi-annually" for $16.50/mo, or I can "lock in" a rate of $16.63/mo for 2.5 years. On a service which has been falling in price (i.e. - metered mobile data).
Unless you happen to live in that magical land where you use between 5.2 and 6GB in 6 months, you may as well get the 6 month plan and take your chance on a better plan in the future. Like adding your car to your existing mobile plan for $10 and using your existing data pool.
"Clearly the proper metric that used here is to charge for LTE data use per individual"
AYFKM? Why would anyone, ever, charge you for one pool of data to purchase when they can charge you multiple times? Look, you could pay $50/mo for 2GB, and $10/GB after that, but where's the profit in it? You clearly have the money to purchase a phone, a tablet, a laptop, and a car - what's an extra $20-40/mo per device after you've spent 10-100-1000X that getting the hardware. It seems only "fair" that your internet provider should see a cut on the first byte on each device. Think of the expense and computing power required to keep those devices active on the 'net - $20 per device all of a sudden seems kind of low, doesn't it?
First you take away first device fees, then you want free texting (as if it's just surplus bandwith that is just being thrown away) - who's going to make sure AT&T execs can afford food and clothes for their kids, a new fur for the wife, or a second yacht? You take away per-device pricing and you may as well just sign every telecom executive up for welfare and food stamps. It's like you don't even care.
They check all that stuff before you're cleared, and every time your clearance is renewed. I find it hard to believe that this isn't already at least partially true already.
Like most things Reagan, that works right up to the point where you actually have to implement it. Increasing water resources means increasing energy usage. Which is great when you have plentiful energy, except that we don't. Energy costs money, and clean energy (the kind that doesn't pollute the "free" clean water sources we have) costs even more money and takes even more energy to get moving.
Not using a resource always costs less than converting a non-usable resource into a usable one.
Ronald Reagan was a nice old man, a great people person, and a charismatic leader. And that counts for a lot when you're dealing with people and leaders. But he was dumber than a brick when it came to economics and technology.
I though most of it came from snow melt on the western half of the continental divide.
Exporting 100 billion gallons, is, of course, utter bullshit. The only water that gets actually exported is the water weight of the exports. There is additional water lost through evaporation due to agricultural irrigation, which exceeds the non-irrigated evaporation rate. That last one is the real target, and the concern of this veginazi.
Where, exactly, so you think your drinking water comes from? Animal breath, sweat, piss, and former animal breath/sweat/piss that has already been condensed into current bodies of water on the planet, or trapped in underground aquifers from ancient animals
Water "lost" to a region is that which is directly moved when the food is harvested and trucked out of the area, or evaporation due to agriculture which exceeds the natural evaporation rate and results in dispersion outside of the local climate area.
If you're worried about drinking water, you should lament the rain which falls in the ocean.
Closer to 10% wrong. Beef cattle are rarely fed alfalfa - I say this as a former "farmer" 30 years ago as a teen. Alfalfa is twice as expensive as timothy or field grass. It does, however contain calcium, which is great (necessary) for lactating cattle a goats, which is why it's used mcuh more for dairy animals. They pretty much all get grain, though, because the energy content is higher. For Dairy, that means more calories available for producing milk, and for beef it translates to a heavier animal, which in turn is a higher dollar yield at market.
The 100 billion gallons of water in exported alfalfa, I agree, is so stupid that it basically invalidates the entire article's credibility.
I pay just shy of $1200 for 2 years here in the US and get unlimited data. Actual, real, unlimited data on LTE (~7-10Mbps). Plus more minutes than I can use (which is fairly few, admittedly, when you consider most of my minutes are free since their to same-carrier phones).
Oh, and I get a new $800 phone every 2 years included in that price. So, on balance, about $16.67/mo if you count the phone. I'd go for the "bundled" internet to get a discount, but my carrier's internet isn't all that fast. If I quit at any point, I owe about 30% of the value of the phone on the day I receive it, should I decided to cancel my service, and that drops by 1.5% every month. Not that it matters, it's not like I'm going to get better coverage or more data for less money.
Isn't this what got them in trouble - removing Indian companies who notified Google that they were violating their IP?
They could switch to opt-in only via robots, and just put a notice in the search indicating that the company has not authorized them to display particular search results, but apparently that's not good enough either : http://news.slashdot.org/story...
That works right up to the point where Apple controls every transistor on every machine that runs iOS. Even Jony and Tim won't fuck up Apple's cash cow that badly, and they done some really stupid-as-shit things since ol' Stevie boy went toes up.
Laptops aren't just laptops these day - there are more and more hybrid devices which switch from laptop to tablet (a Sony Flip, for example). Sadly, operating systems for laptops (like Windows) are wholly inappropriate - or just very, very poorly optimized for tablet usage (yes, Windows again). Android is light years ahead of the Metro interface for tablet use. So it's better to be able to switch back and forth to get the best interface you can.
Sure you could reboot every time you wanted to switch, but you may as well go back to DOS and single threaded work. Why should we NOT want to be able to transition between the OS and application that fits the job the best?
They think high gas prices are Obama's fault. Like he has a dial in his office that changes them. Gasoline was the largest export of the US in 2012 - the prices are high because other people are willing to pay more than we are.
"which was mostly used to shore up the existing salaries and pensions of his political base"
I've got bad news for you - the stimulus pretty much all went to government contractors, the vast majority of which are controlled by, and for the benefit of, right-leaning individuals. The money was spread far and wide, so at the ground level it's probably 50-50, but those folks do nothing but vote and none of them give enough to campaigns to make it interesting. I don't remember huge stimuli for the entertainment industry, or for union organizations directly, or hiring government workers (unless you count the money given to states for police officers and fire fighters...which, again, aren't exactly the biggest bastions of Democrat love). If you're talking about the bailout of the auto industry which kept all the union workers from being unemployed, that was Bush.
Not that it matters - the original goal was to keep oil in the country to avoid corporations selling "our" oil to others for profits when the middle east was giving us the finger. And, really, the high cost of gasoline and other refined products is still a result of us selling our refined products internationally where the companies can make more money. Everyone complains about the high cost of gasoline, and how we must drill more to become energy independant, when in reality we produce so much excess fuel that it was *the* greatest US export in 2012. Our gas prices are high because other countries are willing to pay more for it than we are. That's not to say that our policies aren't protectionist, but there's a huge gulf between where we are and where we could be if we wanted to be selfish about it.
By active, they generally mean available for landing/takeoff. They all have restricted airspace around them 24/7, just like airports. It's a bit overreaching for the FAA to get all wrapped around the axle when they guy was working for the owner of the pad (UVa/UVa Health).
Exactly. Though we don't know if he had coordinated with the hospital about flying near the landing zone, but one would hope he checked with the department before filming - as most responsible adults (and anyone versed in model aircraft) would have done. Those helicopters don't just suddenly appear - when they get call out it's a fairly big deal, and personnel are waiting for their arrival. If it was a shot of the helicopter on the pad, there are always responders in the support building and I would expect they were in on it, in that case.
The reassignment from the pedestrian "model aircraft" to the commercial/evil "drone" label seems to have emboldend the FAA to be more proactive in their regulatory stance. If (and that's a big if) model flying becomes much more common (like Amazon's delivery service) and crowded public airspace is genuinely a problem, then there would be a reason for concern. However, this was fulfilling a private contract on the land operated by one of the parties.
Did the same thing when I turned 30; switched from Aerospace Engineering to Structural Engineering (i.e. buildings). I got a masters in the field I wanted to switch to and applied for jobs based on the new degree. Took me 2 years of evenings. And a 50% pay cut. Hey, I didn't say it was easy. (Oh, 15 years out I now gross 3-3.5x what I made when I left Aerospace, run my own consulting firm, and get to post on/. whenever the fuck I want.)
Yes, you have 12.5 x 10^14 potential minimal units in circulation, but 10^8 units go out with every "bitcoin" which is rendered inaccessible. Losing, say, 4x10^5 bitcoin (if Satoshi died with the passwords in his head) seems small, except that it represents 4x10^13 units in your 12.5x10^4 world. Still not entirely disruptive, but if several large holders were to lose access to their BTC hashes, it could materially reduce the currency circulation.
There is a certain, finite attrition of coins over time through common failures (like the guy who forgot his wallet was on a laptop, and it got thrown away). The problem may be on a time scale larger than the expected life of bitcoin, but it is an endgame few people have talked about.
It wasn't "destroyed" in the physical or electronic sense. However, if you were to lose your cold-storage wallet (and it ended up at the bottom of a landfill), or you were to die, with your wallet encryption password only in your head, those BTC would still exist but would never be available for trading. They may as well be destroyed, since they can never, ever re-enter circulation, baring someone unlocking the encryption (which BTC has been designed to prevent).
Subdivision isn't, but elimination is. If we agree that all the BTC can purchase 100T of gold, and then we destroy half of the BTC, does that double the value of BTC? I t might, it might not. It's not pegged to a single standard, only what the market feels it is worth. It's run up has been predicated on a limited supply. What if that supply shrinks?
I was under the impression that there was a nearly-finite (what a funny term) about of BC that could be generated based on the underlying math. You would have to isolate the BC which was lost, but unless there's a good, untrimmed chain and the hashes of the wallets of a lost BC owner, you might never know. Which is why its such a big deal to keep track of your BC. It was set up with the purpose of a limited supply to avoid the pitfalls of fiat currency.
Of course, then there's the dark side. By eliminating lots of high-value bitcoin owners who don't have plans for untimely demise, you might increase the value of your own bitcoin holdings by reducing the overall supply.
Slashdot Mirror
So I can go "semi-annually" for $16.50/mo, or I can "lock in" a rate of $16.63/mo for 2.5 years. On a service which has been falling in price (i.e. - metered mobile data).
Unless you happen to live in that magical land where you use between 5.2 and 6GB in 6 months, you may as well get the 6 month plan and take your chance on a better plan in the future. Like adding your car to your existing mobile plan for $10 and using your existing data pool.
"Clearly the proper metric that used here is to charge for LTE data use per individual"
AYFKM? Why would anyone, ever, charge you for one pool of data to purchase when they can charge you multiple times? Look, you could pay $50/mo for 2GB, and $10/GB after that, but where's the profit in it? You clearly have the money to purchase a phone, a tablet, a laptop, and a car - what's an extra $20-40/mo per device after you've spent 10-100-1000X that getting the hardware. It seems only "fair" that your internet provider should see a cut on the first byte on each device. Think of the expense and computing power required to keep those devices active on the 'net - $20 per device all of a sudden seems kind of low, doesn't it?
First you take away first device fees, then you want free texting (as if it's just surplus bandwith that is just being thrown away) - who's going to make sure AT&T execs can afford food and clothes for their kids, a new fur for the wife, or a second yacht? You take away per-device pricing and you may as well just sign every telecom executive up for welfare and food stamps. It's like you don't even care.
Note to the press: "Hackers" doesn't mean what you think is means.
They check all that stuff before you're cleared, and every time your clearance is renewed. I find it hard to believe that this isn't already at least partially true already.
I don't see it as very creative, but otherwise I agree ;-)
Like most things Reagan, that works right up to the point where you actually have to implement it. Increasing water resources means increasing energy usage. Which is great when you have plentiful energy, except that we don't. Energy costs money, and clean energy (the kind that doesn't pollute the "free" clean water sources we have) costs even more money and takes even more energy to get moving.
Not using a resource always costs less than converting a non-usable resource into a usable one.
Ronald Reagan was a nice old man, a great people person, and a charismatic leader. And that counts for a lot when you're dealing with people and leaders. But he was dumber than a brick when it came to economics and technology.
I though most of it came from snow melt on the western half of the continental divide.
Exporting 100 billion gallons, is, of course, utter bullshit. The only water that gets actually exported is the water weight of the exports. There is additional water lost through evaporation due to agricultural irrigation, which exceeds the non-irrigated evaporation rate. That last one is the real target, and the concern of this veginazi.
Where, exactly, so you think your drinking water comes from? Animal breath, sweat, piss, and former animal breath/sweat/piss that has already been condensed into current bodies of water on the planet, or trapped in underground aquifers from ancient animals
Water "lost" to a region is that which is directly moved when the food is harvested and trucked out of the area, or evaporation due to agriculture which exceeds the natural evaporation rate and results in dispersion outside of the local climate area.
If you're worried about drinking water, you should lament the rain which falls in the ocean.
Closer to 10% wrong. Beef cattle are rarely fed alfalfa - I say this as a former "farmer" 30 years ago as a teen. Alfalfa is twice as expensive as timothy or field grass. It does, however contain calcium, which is great (necessary) for lactating cattle a goats, which is why it's used mcuh more for dairy animals. They pretty much all get grain, though, because the energy content is higher. For Dairy, that means more calories available for producing milk, and for beef it translates to a heavier animal, which in turn is a higher dollar yield at market.
The 100 billion gallons of water in exported alfalfa, I agree, is so stupid that it basically invalidates the entire article's credibility.
I pay just shy of $1200 for 2 years here in the US and get unlimited data. Actual, real, unlimited data on LTE (~7-10Mbps). Plus more minutes than I can use (which is fairly few, admittedly, when you consider most of my minutes are free since their to same-carrier phones).
Oh, and I get a new $800 phone every 2 years included in that price. So, on balance, about $16.67/mo if you count the phone. I'd go for the "bundled" internet to get a discount, but my carrier's internet isn't all that fast. If I quit at any point, I owe about 30% of the value of the phone on the day I receive it, should I decided to cancel my service, and that drops by 1.5% every month. Not that it matters, it's not like I'm going to get better coverage or more data for less money.
Isn't this what got them in trouble - removing Indian companies who notified Google that they were violating their IP?
They could switch to opt-in only via robots, and just put a notice in the search indicating that the company has not authorized them to display particular search results, but apparently that's not good enough either : http://news.slashdot.org/story...
That's some pretty weak-sauce argument for all out censure.
I read the entire fine article, and I'm still at a loss. What was the specific harm which the Indian government is trying to correct?
That works right up to the point where Apple controls every transistor on every machine that runs iOS. Even Jony and Tim won't fuck up Apple's cash cow that badly, and they done some really stupid-as-shit things since ol' Stevie boy went toes up.
Laptops aren't just laptops these day - there are more and more hybrid devices which switch from laptop to tablet (a Sony Flip, for example). Sadly, operating systems for laptops (like Windows) are wholly inappropriate - or just very, very poorly optimized for tablet usage (yes, Windows again). Android is light years ahead of the Metro interface for tablet use. So it's better to be able to switch back and forth to get the best interface you can.
Sure you could reboot every time you wanted to switch, but you may as well go back to DOS and single threaded work. Why should we NOT want to be able to transition between the OS and application that fits the job the best?
So, like, creation. That's thousands of years old.
They think high gas prices are Obama's fault. Like he has a dial in his office that changes them. Gasoline was the largest export of the US in 2012 - the prices are high because other people are willing to pay more than we are.
"which was mostly used to shore up the existing salaries and pensions of his political base"
I've got bad news for you - the stimulus pretty much all went to government contractors, the vast majority of which are controlled by, and for the benefit of, right-leaning individuals. The money was spread far and wide, so at the ground level it's probably 50-50, but those folks do nothing but vote and none of them give enough to campaigns to make it interesting. I don't remember huge stimuli for the entertainment industry, or for union organizations directly, or hiring government workers (unless you count the money given to states for police officers and fire fighters...which, again, aren't exactly the biggest bastions of Democrat love). If you're talking about the bailout of the auto industry which kept all the union workers from being unemployed, that was Bush.
Not that it matters - the original goal was to keep oil in the country to avoid corporations selling "our" oil to others for profits when the middle east was giving us the finger. And, really, the high cost of gasoline and other refined products is still a result of us selling our refined products internationally where the companies can make more money. Everyone complains about the high cost of gasoline, and how we must drill more to become energy independant, when in reality we produce so much excess fuel that it was *the* greatest US export in 2012. Our gas prices are high because other countries are willing to pay more for it than we are. That's not to say that our policies aren't protectionist, but there's a huge gulf between where we are and where we could be if we wanted to be selfish about it.
By active, they generally mean available for landing/takeoff. They all have restricted airspace around them 24/7, just like airports. It's a bit overreaching for the FAA to get all wrapped around the axle when they guy was working for the owner of the pad (UVa/UVa Health).
Exactly. Though we don't know if he had coordinated with the hospital about flying near the landing zone, but one would hope he checked with the department before filming - as most responsible adults (and anyone versed in model aircraft) would have done. Those helicopters don't just suddenly appear - when they get call out it's a fairly big deal, and personnel are waiting for their arrival. If it was a shot of the helicopter on the pad, there are always responders in the support building and I would expect they were in on it, in that case.
The reassignment from the pedestrian "model aircraft" to the commercial/evil "drone" label seems to have emboldend the FAA to be more proactive in their regulatory stance. If (and that's a big if) model flying becomes much more common (like Amazon's delivery service) and crowded public airspace is genuinely a problem, then there would be a reason for concern. However, this was fulfilling a private contract on the land operated by one of the parties.
Did the same thing when I turned 30; switched from Aerospace Engineering to Structural Engineering (i.e. buildings). I got a masters in the field I wanted to switch to and applied for jobs based on the new degree. Took me 2 years of evenings. And a 50% pay cut. Hey, I didn't say it was easy. (Oh, 15 years out I now gross 3-3.5x what I made when I left Aerospace, run my own consulting firm, and get to post on /. whenever the fuck I want.)
Yes, you have 12.5 x 10^14 potential minimal units in circulation, but 10^8 units go out with every "bitcoin" which is rendered inaccessible. Losing, say, 4x10^5 bitcoin (if Satoshi died with the passwords in his head) seems small, except that it represents 4x10^13 units in your 12.5x10^4 world. Still not entirely disruptive, but if several large holders were to lose access to their BTC hashes, it could materially reduce the currency circulation.
There is a certain, finite attrition of coins over time through common failures (like the guy who forgot his wallet was on a laptop, and it got thrown away). The problem may be on a time scale larger than the expected life of bitcoin, but it is an endgame few people have talked about.
It wasn't "destroyed" in the physical or electronic sense. However, if you were to lose your cold-storage wallet (and it ended up at the bottom of a landfill), or you were to die, with your wallet encryption password only in your head, those BTC would still exist but would never be available for trading. They may as well be destroyed, since they can never, ever re-enter circulation, baring someone unlocking the encryption (which BTC has been designed to prevent).
Subdivision isn't, but elimination is. If we agree that all the BTC can purchase 100T of gold, and then we destroy half of the BTC, does that double the value of BTC? I t might, it might not. It's not pegged to a single standard, only what the market feels it is worth. It's run up has been predicated on a limited supply. What if that supply shrinks?
I was under the impression that there was a nearly-finite (what a funny term) about of BC that could be generated based on the underlying math. You would have to isolate the BC which was lost, but unless there's a good, untrimmed chain and the hashes of the wallets of a lost BC owner, you might never know. Which is why its such a big deal to keep track of your BC. It was set up with the purpose of a limited supply to avoid the pitfalls of fiat currency.
Of course, then there's the dark side. By eliminating lots of high-value bitcoin owners who don't have plans for untimely demise, you might increase the value of your own bitcoin holdings by reducing the overall supply.