Because sometimes you have to do the math right now and get it right. If you have 30 minutes (or an hour, or a day - the problem will take longer to solve on a computer than you have to go back to the office and run your analysis) to make a life or death decision, I pray you have the ability to do math in your head, and do it right.
You laugh, but some of us make these calls as part of our career. We have to know the math, the formulas, and how entire systems interact. When we get it wrong, people die. We're professional engineers.
Where is the absolute outrage about the harvesting of meta-data which was aimed at the NSA?
Here's a company doing it for profit, willing to sell access to the highest bidder (or just for a flat rate), whereas when the NSA does it for national security reasons, it's like they kill a puppy every time they save to disc. If you're really worried about undue influence of political structures, this is far more damning and easier to access/leverage than a top secret database.
You all should be lighting the torches and sharpening the pitchforks, not bitching about telemarketer strategies.
Test their theory - get all your young, healthy friends to start engaging in risky behaviors to increase your use of the health system and prove to them that this was a bad idea.
OTOH, I'm in favor of letting young, healthy people opt out. You get to choose at 18 (26 if your parents have you on their insurance) if you want "in" on the system. If you opt in you're guaranteed the system access and benefits for as long as you remain in the system. If you opt out, you never have to buy insurance. BUT, you're not guaranteed coverage later (i.e. pre-existing conditions may be excluded and/or you may be denied or dropped - just like it is today), and hospitals are no longer required to care for you if you don't provide advanced payment - even in emergency situations.
You're carrying around a persistent GPS/location device, in a vehicle marked with a uniquely identifiable number. They're not really gaining anything through this if you're paranoid enough.
Here's why: your driving skills may or may not vary over your life, and may go up or down. Your health is virtually guaranteed to get worse.
The ACA says that, until you're eligible for Medicare (because, let's face it, nobody in the bottom 99% is going to be able to afford health insurance rates when you're in your 70s) you should be able to get healthcare, and to make it "fair" (arbitrary decision), the worst person can't be charged more than X times the best person. To make up for it, the entire scale of actuary needs gets compressed. The really healthy pay more, the really sick pay less. The hope/goal - which is entirely untested - is that if everyone has healthcare, there will be *somebody* paying for the Billions of dollars in "free" healthcare which hospitals must provide to everyone regardless of ability to pay. Now, we all pay for those through higher medical rates. Will it work? hard to tell, really - and it will probably be 5+ years before we can even find out.
When ever someone offers you the opportunity for lower rates by providing more information, what they are really offering is the opportunity to either eliminate you from their liability pool or raise your rates. Insurance is, in an efficient market like auto insurance, a zero sum game. Those whose rates get lowered must be offset by those with higher rates unless the overall claims volume is reduced.
Bad drivers already are in a feedback loop from their insurers. Anyone who has received a moving violation or been in an accident feels the pressure of insurance premiums. It's the only reason I get concerned about a speeding ticket - $150 for getting caught doing 12-15mph over on the freeway is annoying; having my premiums go up $400/year for 2 or more years is far more punishment than the courts are doling out.
He can't put it on the side facing the Earth. I don't mind him building a hotel there, but I don't want it in my view shed, or in the view shed of [insert favorite historic landmark here].
That's the kicker - they've asked the FAA to amend the international agreement which can't be done unilaterally. OTOH, since it's a treaty between nations, no private entity can initiate a change request.
So they are countering this bad press by open sourcing the system and inviting everyone to verify that their hardware is ait-tight secure, right? Right?
Indeed, many malls have moderately robust HVAC and power - think of all the incandescent lighting used in retail, esp since these structures were built pre-CFL/LED. Many also have basic power backup (generators) to power emergency lighting for egress. It may not be *enough* for full redundancy, but if the infrastructure is there it can be easier to upgrade than to install from scratch.
You have a GPU solution to speed up Photoshop and Lightroom? How about PDF rendering? More than 99% of all construction projects in the world are designed and printed in 2D format -most are too small to justify the cost of the least expensive 3D modeling option. I do more than 200 small construction projects a year - which means I have, on average, 8-10 billable hours from the time the client calls me to say they need drawings to the time I finish designing, drawing, reviewing, printing, and shipping out the plans. In fact, most jobs have less than 6 hours, with a few large projects which take 30-100 hours.
And, yes, it is like the 1990s. The building industry CAD work is actually BEHIND where aerospace 3D work was back in the early 90s. Most architectural offices still use CAD as if it's just a digital version of pencil and paper. And they do so because it's faster than 3D with the tools we have.
I run $3000 in monitors in a 4960x1600, three-head display. I use a 3+ year old Radeon 5750 card to drive them and it works exceptionally well. Which card would you recommend to accelerate 2D photo display and 2D bitmapped and vector PDF files? There aren't any because none of the software supports it so no graphics card companies make them. To get a multi-thousand dollar "pro" card would simply be throwing money away.
Why would I spend more than I have to on a rig that will never see gaming? I need (okay, want) pixels for photo editing and 2D CAD work / large format PDF review. No amount of money will speed up any of those operations as there are no 2D accelerators or GPU-bound functions in the programs I use. I just want a large canvas, which means pushing lots of pixels.
And, let's face it, if I'm considering $500 Seiki's, it's not exactly an enormous amount of money.
How many 4k monitors can it simultaneously drive? If I want a 2x or 3x 4k setup, will it drive it? I see a Dual DVI, an HDMI and a DP (so max of 2 for Seiki 39" 4k unless the D-DVI and HDMI share a channel...but it doesn't say).
Which is why distinguishing between digital distractions and other distractions shouldn't really be an issue. You're distracted or you're not. The most dangerous/distracting thing in my car is the head unit - whether used with an iPod or the embedded GPS mapping software it requires way too much attention to properly operate. I've switched to using my phone and the voice controls.
Yeah, I've used the internet while driving. Got messages, sent messages, performed searches.
Pretty much all of them at the touch of a single button, while the voice-interactive function did all the leg work. All of it about as distracting as my GPS mapping/traffic program, and hella safer than trying to interact with the head unit in the car. There are still some things which can't be done well (email, for one, is nearly impossible), and none of it is suitable for even moderate traffic conditions, but for simple things (find the nearest pizza place, send a message to I'll be 15 minutes late) in minimal or zero traffic it's probably safer than stopping by the side of the road.
I thought we all agreed several months ago that Card was a outspoken bigot who didn't deserve our entertainment dollars to fund his fight against the social equality?
Which is great for light impacts. What is really needed is thicker, very strong glass (or composite).
That's a cool video, and probably near the useful limit of the glass (within standard factors of safety), but the energy of impact was a 1.3lb (approx) ball at 11mph (4' drop accelerating at 32.2fps). A 4 lb bird strike at 811MPH has 16,500X the energy at impact. I'm not sure off the top of my head whether energy absorption is squared or cubed for a sheet (it's squared for steady state forces), but that still either a 9" thick piece of that glass (squared) or a 1-3/4" thick piece of that glass (cubed).
I thought is was 131. My old Mazda MX-6 was 131 or 132 - it was in the electrical schematics. Found it once on I70 west of Baltimore. It took noticeably more time than the Tesla to achieve fuel cut-off speed than the Tesla.
Slashdot Mirror
Because sometimes you have to do the math right now and get it right. If you have 30 minutes (or an hour, or a day - the problem will take longer to solve on a computer than you have to go back to the office and run your analysis) to make a life or death decision, I pray you have the ability to do math in your head, and do it right.
You laugh, but some of us make these calls as part of our career. We have to know the math, the formulas, and how entire systems interact. When we get it wrong, people die. We're professional engineers.
Where is the absolute outrage about the harvesting of meta-data which was aimed at the NSA?
Here's a company doing it for profit, willing to sell access to the highest bidder (or just for a flat rate), whereas when the NSA does it for national security reasons, it's like they kill a puppy every time they save to disc. If you're really worried about undue influence of political structures, this is far more damning and easier to access/leverage than a top secret database.
You all should be lighting the torches and sharpening the pitchforks, not bitching about telemarketer strategies.
Day early, day late...either way, looks like you just follow the damn thing, find some kid in the straw, and call him the sone of a deity.
My bet: he'll be covered in meatballs and pasta.
Test their theory - get all your young, healthy friends to start engaging in risky behaviors to increase your use of the health system and prove to them that this was a bad idea.
OTOH, I'm in favor of letting young, healthy people opt out. You get to choose at 18 (26 if your parents have you on their insurance) if you want "in" on the system. If you opt in you're guaranteed the system access and benefits for as long as you remain in the system. If you opt out, you never have to buy insurance. BUT, you're not guaranteed coverage later (i.e. pre-existing conditions may be excluded and/or you may be denied or dropped - just like it is today), and hospitals are no longer required to care for you if you don't provide advanced payment - even in emergency situations.
You're carrying around a persistent GPS/location device, in a vehicle marked with a uniquely identifiable number. They're not really gaining anything through this if you're paranoid enough.
Here's why: your driving skills may or may not vary over your life, and may go up or down. Your health is virtually guaranteed to get worse.
The ACA says that, until you're eligible for Medicare (because, let's face it, nobody in the bottom 99% is going to be able to afford health insurance rates when you're in your 70s) you should be able to get healthcare, and to make it "fair" (arbitrary decision), the worst person can't be charged more than X times the best person. To make up for it, the entire scale of actuary needs gets compressed. The really healthy pay more, the really sick pay less. The hope/goal - which is entirely untested - is that if everyone has healthcare, there will be *somebody* paying for the Billions of dollars in "free" healthcare which hospitals must provide to everyone regardless of ability to pay. Now, we all pay for those through higher medical rates. Will it work? hard to tell, really - and it will probably be 5+ years before we can even find out.
When ever someone offers you the opportunity for lower rates by providing more information, what they are really offering is the opportunity to either eliminate you from their liability pool or raise your rates. Insurance is, in an efficient market like auto insurance, a zero sum game. Those whose rates get lowered must be offset by those with higher rates unless the overall claims volume is reduced.
Bad drivers already are in a feedback loop from their insurers. Anyone who has received a moving violation or been in an accident feels the pressure of insurance premiums. It's the only reason I get concerned about a speeding ticket - $150 for getting caught doing 12-15mph over on the freeway is annoying; having my premiums go up $400/year for 2 or more years is far more punishment than the courts are doling out.
He can't put it on the side facing the Earth. I don't mind him building a hotel there, but I don't want it in my view shed, or in the view shed of [insert favorite historic landmark here].
That's the kicker - they've asked the FAA to amend the international agreement which can't be done unilaterally. OTOH, since it's a treaty between nations, no private entity can initiate a change request.
So they are countering this bad press by open sourcing the system and inviting everyone to verify that their hardware is ait-tight secure, right? Right?
*crickets*
Well, pop up ads do seem to have made a come back since their initial trials were less than successful.
Indeed, many malls have moderately robust HVAC and power - think of all the incandescent lighting used in retail, esp since these structures were built pre-CFL/LED. Many also have basic power backup (generators) to power emergency lighting for egress. It may not be *enough* for full redundancy, but if the infrastructure is there it can be easier to upgrade than to install from scratch.
You have a GPU solution to speed up Photoshop and Lightroom? How about PDF rendering? More than 99% of all construction projects in the world are designed and printed in 2D format -most are too small to justify the cost of the least expensive 3D modeling option. I do more than 200 small construction projects a year - which means I have, on average, 8-10 billable hours from the time the client calls me to say they need drawings to the time I finish designing, drawing, reviewing, printing, and shipping out the plans. In fact, most jobs have less than 6 hours, with a few large projects which take 30-100 hours.
And, yes, it is like the 1990s. The building industry CAD work is actually BEHIND where aerospace 3D work was back in the early 90s. Most architectural offices still use CAD as if it's just a digital version of pencil and paper. And they do so because it's faster than 3D with the tools we have.
Cost is only unimportant when you're spending someone else's money.
I run $3000 in monitors in a 4960x1600, three-head display. I use a 3+ year old Radeon 5750 card to drive them and it works exceptionally well. Which card would you recommend to accelerate 2D photo display and 2D bitmapped and vector PDF files? There aren't any because none of the software supports it so no graphics card companies make them. To get a multi-thousand dollar "pro" card would simply be throwing money away.
Why would I spend more than I have to on a rig that will never see gaming? I need (okay, want) pixels for photo editing and 2D CAD work / large format PDF review. No amount of money will speed up any of those operations as there are no 2D accelerators or GPU-bound functions in the programs I use. I just want a large canvas, which means pushing lots of pixels.
And, let's face it, if I'm considering $500 Seiki's, it's not exactly an enormous amount of money.
How many 4k monitors can it simultaneously drive? If I want a 2x or 3x 4k setup, will it drive it? I see a Dual DVI, an HDMI and a DP (so max of 2 for Seiki 39" 4k unless the D-DVI and HDMI share a channel...but it doesn't say).
Which is why distinguishing between digital distractions and other distractions shouldn't really be an issue. You're distracted or you're not. The most dangerous/distracting thing in my car is the head unit - whether used with an iPod or the embedded GPS mapping software it requires way too much attention to properly operate. I've switched to using my phone and the voice controls.
Yeah, I've used the internet while driving. Got messages, sent messages, performed searches.
Pretty much all of them at the touch of a single button, while the voice-interactive function did all the leg work. All of it about as distracting as my GPS mapping/traffic program, and hella safer than trying to interact with the head unit in the car. There are still some things which can't be done well (email, for one, is nearly impossible), and none of it is suitable for even moderate traffic conditions, but for simple things (find the nearest pizza place, send a message to I'll be 15 minutes late) in minimal or zero traffic it's probably safer than stopping by the side of the road.
Federalist 41 is not the constitution. If it was, they would have included it.
Oh, and let's talk about that Militia clause...
Trash a $70,000 car just to get rid of a viola?
Yeah, that's a fair trade. Now, let's talk about saxophones...
I thought we all agreed several months ago that Card was a outspoken bigot who didn't deserve our entertainment dollars to fund his fight against the social equality?
Which is great for light impacts. What is really needed is thicker, very strong glass (or composite).
That's a cool video, and probably near the useful limit of the glass (within standard factors of safety), but the energy of impact was a 1.3lb (approx) ball at 11mph (4' drop accelerating at 32.2fps). A 4 lb bird strike at 811MPH has 16,500X the energy at impact. I'm not sure off the top of my head whether energy absorption is squared or cubed for a sheet (it's squared for steady state forces), but that still either a 9" thick piece of that glass (squared) or a 1-3/4" thick piece of that glass (cubed).
I thought is was 131. My old Mazda MX-6 was 131 or 132 - it was in the electrical schematics. Found it once on I70 west of Baltimore. It took noticeably more time than the Tesla to achieve fuel cut-off speed than the Tesla.
No, there's no way a Citation could hit 132 MPH