72kmph, like 72,000 miles per hour? Lots. The R&D costs alone boggle the mind, then there's prototyping...:)
I thought perhaps the k meant knots, but I RTFA and it quotes 30 mph top speed, so it's effectively an extremely expensive but slow jet-ski, just up in the air.
Is that MC is 0. It isn't, though it may be small. It also doesn't cover fixed costs at all. If I spend $1,000,000 writing the next killer app and give it away for the cost of distribution, it's pretty easy to see I'm out the original $1,000,000. If I give it away for literally free, I'm out the original $1,000,000 and I've picked up the cost of distribution, too.
Prices drop to MC in the face of (perfect) competition, yes, but before that happens consumers are paying more than cost, and willingly so because the product is worth more to them than they pay for it. If you don't have credible evidence customers will do that, you don't invest in developing the product.
The only reason free software works is massive charity on the part of developers and project managers who get non-monetary benefits out of being involved in the project, or in some cases, corporate sponsorship.
Note, too, that business segments which involve perfect competition are not generally places you want to be. You are a commodity. Everybody, top to bottom, gets squeezed.
Things like this are perpetuated because they aren't slapped down.
I know of a adjunct college prof at a very, very good college who crossed a line with his class in a similar, though not identical way. If you're familiar, adjunct is basically a trial run. His line-crossing resulted in some candid talks with the administration, and a public apology. Oh, and he doesn't work there anymore.
When enough people stop tolerating this garbage, it stops happening.
I agree with your slippery slope argument, but where do you get this idea that we punish for a crime, then all is forgotten, or that the constitution requires us to do that?
Ex-cons are simply more likely to commit crime. The fairy tale world you want to live in, where they do their time and are magically just like the rest of us again, does not exist.
That said, all these little subcrime divides are becoming stupid. Crimes against children are abhorrent, but crimes against adults are not better. Let's punish them equally (and severely). Crimes against police officers or other public officials are not worse than crimes against you or me. We're worth just as much as they are. I don't understand why I can look up online where the sex offenders in my city are, but I can't look up where the murderers, robbers, and drug dealers are. Is it safer to live next to one of them?
On the contrary, the report says they were incapacitated by the loss of pressurization was an inference based on known fact, not a desire to mollify the public. Ok, I'm reaching on that last bit. Maybe they do want to mollify the public, but the inference stands on reported fact.
Six of the seven were wearing helmets. If they noticed the loss of pressurization and had time to respond, they'd have closed their visors. I don't recall how the gloves fit in, since most or all of them also didn't have gloves on. Nobody closed their visor, so the investigators infer loss of consciousness happened pretty fast. By your last paragraph, I don't think you read the report. Helmets on (6 of 7), yes, but visors open (6 of 6). The forces were also not that great for quite a while (2-3 Gs). One hell of a ride, but as the report says, you'd likely be able to keep yourself from the sorts of injuries they sustained if you were awake and able to brace yourself.
Personally, I'd even find death by banging around comforting. I'd imagined the capsule splitting open and spitting them into a 12,000 mph windstream.
The report doesn't list a cause of death, it lists five events which were sufficient to cause death, the first being cabin depressurization, and IIRC, the second was the restraint system failing to keep their upper bodies immobilized as the crew compartment tumbled, resulting in what would have been lethal injuries. For the pedantic, yes, the report implies they were alive when these injuries occurred because their circulatory systems were still functioning. I parse that to mean there was associated bleeding.
Thermal injury would, of course, have been fatal, but by the time they were exposed to re-entry heat, they were no longer breathing (no heat related injuries in the lungs).
The final potential lethal event was ground impact. And actually, if they'd been in pressurized suits AND the restraint system didn't fail, they'd have likely lived until the crew compartment disintegrated and they were exposed to reentry heat. As it was, they fell unconscious almost immediately after depressurization.
It's a fascinating report, with what I gather are the more graphic bits redacted. It's quite a thorough and professional job, and though it talks about seats and functions, there's always the awareness that you're reading the story of the final moments of real people, and that the whole point of the report is that we might do a better job of protecting our future astronauts.
The risk is that kids will get into places we'd rather them not. Honestly, there's a lot of total trash on the 'net that adults would probably be better off seeing.
The risk, though, is that we train kids to be subservient to authority, which is bad for them and bad for a free society. As we've seen so much recently, many, many people and groups are quick to claim authority illegitimately. I'd really rather have kids grow up believing it's NOT ok for big brother to monitor what they're doing 24x7.
In fact, it's common knowledge that more fatalities happen on the descent and that HAPE and HACE are the biggest dangers.
Maybe it's news that someone outside the climbing community actually did a study and confirmed what we've known all along, but there's nothing new here. Move along.
How? The vast majority of cell phone customers don't care. Let me buy one without switching to AT&T and I'd literally get in the car and buy one right now.
If They Don't, Someone Else Will
That is probably true, but irrelevant. They should do it if there's a solid business case (meaning it will make them more money). If it will make them less money, they should NOT do it, even if someone else will.
Coming in way late on this, so probably no one will ever read my lone, late comment. I didn't want to look at this at work just in case.
The cover isn't pornographic at all. I would even argue, in spite of the title "Virgin Killer" implying a sexual theme, the image isn't even sexual. My feeling upon seeing it was a mix of sympathy (what's this kid gotten herself into?) and curiousity (what's the story this picture and title are trying to tell? Who is this person--not who is the model, but who is this character being presented to us?).
It raises a lot of interesting questions. It doesn't raise anything else, if you get my meaning. I think they call that art.
This nicely frames the child pornography debate. Some see this and scream "porn!". Others (me) see it and think...well, lots of things, none of them sexual. Then you have nitwit Australian judges who see naked cartoons and want to call THAT child porn, which is simply indefensible unless someone thinks Bart and Lisa were harmed in the drawing of those images.
Sure. I'll grant you that. But as far as retirement goes, it's a negative return if you make much at all. You'd do better putting cash in your mattress. That's why it props up the budget. They take your money and give some back.
Let's skip the sad but true part that most people are simply too short sighted to even put cash in the mattress.
I think Google's shininess has worn off for most at this point.
The interesting implication to me is that I may have to concede Microsoft is not inherently evil, at least not more so than any other large corporation. Google, having become one has been progressively more Microsoft-ey.
Your analogy is flawed. Seeing that the elder's fly is open would be equivalent to somebody telling you the password. Logging in and poking around is like seeing the open fly and reaching in to see what you can find on the other side.
Simple rules, kids. If it's not yours, stay out. Most people have enough common sense to know that if my door isn't locked, or is even open, that does not constitute an invitation to come in. If discovered, you may be yelled at, soundly beaten, or arrested. Computer systems are the same way. If you access one against the wishes of the owner, they're going to be pissed and will do mean things to you for a multitude of fairly good reasons.
He is a director in the same sense I am a door to door salesman, mechanic, dirt bike rider, and diaper wetter.
Saying I once did those things is accurate. Saying that I "am" any of them is not because it creates the belief that I DO or have recently tried to sell something to someone, fixed broken machinery, ridden a low powered motorcycle on a dirt track, or soiled myself.
If only English were a rich enough language to denote the difference between what people once did and what they do now. Oh, wait, it is.:)
Which is laughable, considering the definition of "verify":
2 : to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of
To verify does not mean to point at someone else who said it first.
Perhaps they've confused themselves with wikiquote, or wikinespaper, or wikigossip.
wikiPEDIA should strive to be correct, not merely point at someone else who might be correct. Certainly the referenced case, where a person accurately corrects their own entry and some nitwit keeps un-correcting it, is indicative of a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Are we avoiding the part where that happened because schools abuse their authority and disregard the true wishes of the parents?
Just checking.
Lying is one of four factors necessary to comprise fraud. Lying, in itself, is not a crime.
SG
72kmph, like 72,000 miles per hour? Lots. The R&D costs alone boggle the mind, then there's prototyping... :)
I thought perhaps the k meant knots, but I RTFA and it quotes 30 mph top speed, so it's effectively an extremely expensive but slow jet-ski, just up in the air.
Is that MC is 0. It isn't, though it may be small. It also doesn't cover fixed costs at all. If I spend $1,000,000 writing the next killer app and give it away for the cost of distribution, it's pretty easy to see I'm out the original $1,000,000. If I give it away for literally free, I'm out the original $1,000,000 and I've picked up the cost of distribution, too.
Prices drop to MC in the face of (perfect) competition, yes, but before that happens consumers are paying more than cost, and willingly so because the product is worth more to them than they pay for it. If you don't have credible evidence customers will do that, you don't invest in developing the product.
The only reason free software works is massive charity on the part of developers and project managers who get non-monetary benefits out of being involved in the project, or in some cases, corporate sponsorship.
Note, too, that business segments which involve perfect competition are not generally places you want to be. You are a commodity. Everybody, top to bottom, gets squeezed.
Disagree.
Things like this are perpetuated because they aren't slapped down.
I know of a adjunct college prof at a very, very good college who crossed a line with his class in a similar, though not identical way. If you're familiar, adjunct is basically a trial run. His line-crossing resulted in some candid talks with the administration, and a public apology. Oh, and he doesn't work there anymore.
When enough people stop tolerating this garbage, it stops happening.
...ironically the 16th error is the dreaded "off by 10" error.
True. In addition, what someone who goes from $40k to $120k has also done is aged a fair bit and gained a family to support.
Personally, I had more free spending money when I made $20k per year. Youth is cheap.
I agree with your slippery slope argument, but where do you get this idea that we punish for a crime, then all is forgotten, or that the constitution requires us to do that?
Ex-cons are simply more likely to commit crime. The fairy tale world you want to live in, where they do their time and are magically just like the rest of us again, does not exist.
That said, all these little subcrime divides are becoming stupid. Crimes against children are abhorrent, but crimes against adults are not better. Let's punish them equally (and severely). Crimes against police officers or other public officials are not worse than crimes against you or me. We're worth just as much as they are. I don't understand why I can look up online where the sex offenders in my city are, but I can't look up where the murderers, robbers, and drug dealers are. Is it safer to live next to one of them?
On the contrary, the report says they were incapacitated by the loss of pressurization was an inference based on known fact, not a desire to mollify the public. Ok, I'm reaching on that last bit. Maybe they do want to mollify the public, but the inference stands on reported fact.
Six of the seven were wearing helmets. If they noticed the loss of pressurization and had time to respond, they'd have closed their visors. I don't recall how the gloves fit in, since most or all of them also didn't have gloves on. Nobody closed their visor, so the investigators infer loss of consciousness happened pretty fast. By your last paragraph, I don't think you read the report. Helmets on (6 of 7), yes, but visors open (6 of 6). The forces were also not that great for quite a while (2-3 Gs). One hell of a ride, but as the report says, you'd likely be able to keep yourself from the sorts of injuries they sustained if you were awake and able to brace yourself.
Personally, I'd even find death by banging around comforting. I'd imagined the capsule splitting open and spitting them into a 12,000 mph windstream.
Spoilers.
The report doesn't list a cause of death, it lists five events which were sufficient to cause death, the first being cabin depressurization, and IIRC, the second was the restraint system failing to keep their upper bodies immobilized as the crew compartment tumbled, resulting in what would have been lethal injuries. For the pedantic, yes, the report implies they were alive when these injuries occurred because their circulatory systems were still functioning. I parse that to mean there was associated bleeding.
Thermal injury would, of course, have been fatal, but by the time they were exposed to re-entry heat, they were no longer breathing (no heat related injuries in the lungs).
The final potential lethal event was ground impact. And actually, if they'd been in pressurized suits AND the restraint system didn't fail, they'd have likely lived until the crew compartment disintegrated and they were exposed to reentry heat. As it was, they fell unconscious almost immediately after depressurization.
It's a fascinating report, with what I gather are the more graphic bits redacted. It's quite a thorough and professional job, and though it talks about seats and functions, there's always the awareness that you're reading the story of the final moments of real people, and that the whole point of the report is that we might do a better job of protecting our future astronauts.
Credit crisis included, capitalism still works better than anything else we've tried.
None. And I don't say that lightly.
The risk is that kids will get into places we'd rather them not. Honestly, there's a lot of total trash on the 'net that adults would probably be better off seeing.
The risk, though, is that we train kids to be subservient to authority, which is bad for them and bad for a free society. As we've seen so much recently, many, many people and groups are quick to claim authority illegitimately. I'd really rather have kids grow up believing it's NOT ok for big brother to monitor what they're doing 24x7.
Your sig is so amazingly apropos.
In fact, it's common knowledge that more fatalities happen on the descent and that HAPE and HACE are the biggest dangers.
Maybe it's news that someone outside the climbing community actually did a study and confirmed what we've known all along, but there's nothing new here. Move along.
I also want a robotic device to figure out what's wrong with cars and fix them.
And an expert system that a layperson can feed their symptoms into and get a correct medical diagnosis and appropriate therapy.
And a powerful computer that can computationally identify valuable drugs without a $billion in research dollars.
Everybody wants things that are hard and expensive to be easy and cheap. What's the story again?
There's a beach resort I go to with an a few huge arcades. Walk families with kids past that thing all day long and it gets a lot of traffic.
It's pretty hard to resist the urge to play if you're any good at all. :)
How? The vast majority of cell phone customers don't care. Let me buy one without switching to AT&T and I'd literally get in the car and buy one right now.
That is probably true, but irrelevant. They should do it if there's a solid business case (meaning it will make them more money). If it will make them less money, they should NOT do it, even if someone else will.
It isn't the answer to everything, nor is it the answer to most things, nor is it even necessarily a good business model.
If you're sick and go to a surgeon, you need an operation. To a chiropractor, you need an adjustment. To a witch doctor, you need a dead chicken.
Same thing here.
So black holes are irritating to the Great Space Oyster which deposits stars, dust, and gas around it to prevent irritation?
There's my nomination for worst science analogy this year.
Coming in way late on this, so probably no one will ever read my lone, late comment. I didn't want to look at this at work just in case.
The cover isn't pornographic at all. I would even argue, in spite of the title "Virgin Killer" implying a sexual theme, the image isn't even sexual. My feeling upon seeing it was a mix of sympathy (what's this kid gotten herself into?) and curiousity (what's the story this picture and title are trying to tell? Who is this person--not who is the model, but who is this character being presented to us?).
It raises a lot of interesting questions. It doesn't raise anything else, if you get my meaning. I think they call that art.
This nicely frames the child pornography debate. Some see this and scream "porn!". Others (me) see it and think...well, lots of things, none of them sexual. Then you have nitwit Australian judges who see naked cartoons and want to call THAT child porn, which is simply indefensible unless someone thinks Bart and Lisa were harmed in the drawing of those images.
Meaning they take more in taxes than they spend?
Sure. I'll grant you that. But as far as retirement goes, it's a negative return if you make much at all. You'd do better putting cash in your mattress. That's why it props up the budget. They take your money and give some back.
Let's skip the sad but true part that most people are simply too short sighted to even put cash in the mattress.
I think Google's shininess has worn off for most at this point.
The interesting implication to me is that I may have to concede Microsoft is not inherently evil, at least not more so than any other large corporation. Google, having become one has been progressively more Microsoft-ey.
Your analogy is flawed. Seeing that the elder's fly is open would be equivalent to somebody telling you the password. Logging in and poking around is like seeing the open fly and reaching in to see what you can find on the other side.
Simple rules, kids. If it's not yours, stay out. Most people have enough common sense to know that if my door isn't locked, or is even open, that does not constitute an invitation to come in. If discovered, you may be yelled at, soundly beaten, or arrested. Computer systems are the same way. If you access one against the wishes of the owner, they're going to be pissed and will do mean things to you for a multitude of fairly good reasons.
He is a director in the same sense I am a door to door salesman, mechanic, dirt bike rider, and diaper wetter.
Saying I once did those things is accurate. Saying that I "am" any of them is not because it creates the belief that I DO or have recently tried to sell something to someone, fixed broken machinery, ridden a low powered motorcycle on a dirt track, or soiled myself.
If only English were a rich enough language to denote the difference between what people once did and what they do now. Oh, wait, it is. :)
Which is laughable, considering the definition of "verify":
2 : to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of
To verify does not mean to point at someone else who said it first.
Perhaps they've confused themselves with wikiquote, or wikinespaper, or wikigossip.
wikiPEDIA should strive to be correct, not merely point at someone else who might be correct. Certainly the referenced case, where a person accurately corrects their own entry and some nitwit keeps un-correcting it, is indicative of a problem.