The original argument was that the parents work until 5PM and get home at 6PM. Whether the kids finish school at 3:30PM, 4PM, or 5PM, there needs to be a babysitter involved if they add 1.6 hours to the end of the school day then yes the cost of babysitting breaks even but then are the students actually learning anything for that last 1.5 hours or so (that's a long school day).
Secondly, if the parents are working until 5PM, they'd have to work until 5:30 PM to earn more wages but as a side-effect, they also have to pay the babysitter more. Besides, most people who work at jobs with fixed hours can't set their own schedule, so they won't be able to say "I want to work a half hour more to increase my income". Otherwise they could just decide to come into work early and leave early and avoid the babysitter cost (which makes the situation worse since they otherwise don't employ a babysitter except for the one day). The only case I can see where this breaks even is if one or both parents can work a compressed work week (e.g. also work extra hours Monday-Thursday to have Friday off), but then they'll have to employ the babysitter for more hours in the evening in the general case. Still a net loss for most families and hardly a justification for a savings of $50,000 that is already a socialized cost anyway. It's effectively making the parents pay for that $50,000 twice.
Over the course of four days, the family pays for 2 hours less of daycare (a half hour less each day according to the summary). In exchange, they have to pay for an additional 6.5 hours of daycare on Fridays (assuming a school day from 9-3:30). It's still a net-loss.
The closest is still approximately 9 light-years away, so my comment is still correct (assuming you overlook the fact that I conflated star systems with stars).
I agree with you entirely and I'll take it one step further: software patents are ludicrous because they don't physically affect their environment (not directly, but their effectors may which in turn may or may not be patentable, but not the software). In the past, things like mechanical weaving machines could be patented because it provided a mechanical tool to ease a specific labor (in this case weaving). For the sake of argument, suppose someone discovered that the weaving machine could be used to, for example, sort threads. This novel application of the weaving machine should not be patentable. This is exactly what software patents are: an application of a tool. The one thing that should be patentable is the tool that makes the execution of software possible (i.e. the computer), the way that this tool is used should not be.
Pandora's box was opened the minute a "thinking" machine was created, then everyone and their dog tried to patent the different ways in which this machine could be used, not really building something new, but finding novel ways use for it. In the extreme, we might as well allow patents on methods for bashing things with a rock.
This also seems like an example of re-distribution of cost. I only skimmed TFA, and I didn't see any indication that this change is across the board or just high-school or what, but if it includes K-6, then two-income families are going to have to invest in putting their kids in some form of daycare one day a week so they can continue going to work. Which I'm sure when you account for all the kids that will be in daycare may add up to quite a bit more than $50,000/year. This seems like bad economics to me. On the other hand, some enterprising parents may open up home daycares for extra scratch and the increased demand may drive down the cost of daycare (yeah right), but I don't expect that will very much offset the $50,000+ in lost revenue for the other families.
Remember the sign on the exit door from the polling station that read "if you did not participate, you've forfeited your right to complain"? OK, it's a metaphorical sign, but the problem is a general one.
They should re-think the location of that sign. Presumably if you're in the polling station, you've participated. Those who don't participate will never actually see the sign, then complain vociferously not knowing that they've forfeited their right to do so.
This system has the same problem as photo-radar speed traps: you can identify the vehicle, but not necessarily the driver.
Seems to me that if the data gathered from the TV is correlated to users on-line utilizing the same internet connection, it should be possible for someone to get some idea of what other people in the same household have been watching (or possibly are watching at the time, which if you are clever can be done remotely). This could also become annoying for others in the household. For example: I could be watching football while my girlfriend surfs the internet. Even though she might be on the internet to avoid watching football, will she be bombarded with football related advertisement?
Canada is replacing their paper currency with plastic, for example, and it has a much better carbon footprint, in part because the plastic does not break down and thus does not release carbon into the atmosphere.
But that also means that what goes into the landfill does not biodegrade...
You waited until now to tell me that I could find cash in a landfill?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you meant things other than currency that wind up in the landfill, however, this is the kind of mistake that will probably surface often in life cycle analysis studies: modeling the effects of one thing with another thing and assuming they are equivalent.
One thing that I found interesting in the article is the idea that governments would not be too keen on having mini nuclear reactors roaming around on freeways due to the threat of terrorism. However, an interesting potential corollary is that the apparent motivating factor for modern terrorism could be eliminated since there would no longer be any need to occupy foreign nation states to secure their oil reserves. Granted this is not the only motivating factor, but it makes for interesting brain gymnastics.
Maybe Motorola should remind Apple that the very first Macintosh was powered by a Motorola 6809E microprocessor. Could this be an example of biting the hand that feeds (or has fed)?
I'm not sure what definition of importer you're using, but if the US was a big importer of cinnamon, wouldn't it be more widely used than cassia bark? That is of course unless cinnamon is one of those rare-earth elements we're referring to.
The adiabatic effect will take care of this. Although I'm not sure how much cooling will happen in 2600 feet, which is large in the context artificial structures but not so much in the context of mountains where the adiabatic cooling caused by orographic lift results in snow. On the other hand, considering the initial temperature of the air mass at the bottom of the structure (due to the greenhouse), the effect may be more "effective".
Slashdot Mirror
If we want to live in a world where we can build and launch Mars Orbiters without having them crash, then yes.
Bad modelling hasn't yet stopped "scientists" from influencing policy making... [...] Yes Greenpeace, I am looking at you.
When did scaling government buildings to protest climate change become science?
Maybe this is for everyone's genome.
This is starting to sound like a spy agency again.
The original argument was that the parents work until 5PM and get home at 6PM. Whether the kids finish school at 3:30PM, 4PM, or 5PM, there needs to be a babysitter involved if they add 1.6 hours to the end of the school day then yes the cost of babysitting breaks even but then are the students actually learning anything for that last 1.5 hours or so (that's a long school day).
Secondly, if the parents are working until 5PM, they'd have to work until 5:30 PM to earn more wages but as a side-effect, they also have to pay the babysitter more. Besides, most people who work at jobs with fixed hours can't set their own schedule, so they won't be able to say "I want to work a half hour more to increase my income". Otherwise they could just decide to come into work early and leave early and avoid the babysitter cost (which makes the situation worse since they otherwise don't employ a babysitter except for the one day). The only case I can see where this breaks even is if one or both parents can work a compressed work week (e.g. also work extra hours Monday-Thursday to have Friday off), but then they'll have to employ the babysitter for more hours in the evening in the general case. Still a net loss for most families and hardly a justification for a savings of $50,000 that is already a socialized cost anyway. It's effectively making the parents pay for that $50,000 twice.
Over the course of four days, the family pays for 2 hours less of daycare (a half hour less each day according to the summary). In exchange, they have to pay for an additional 6.5 hours of daycare on Fridays (assuming a school day from 9-3:30). It's still a net-loss.
Good tip. Although I might not otherwise have learned the consequence of making half-baked statements on /.
The closest is still approximately 9 light-years away, so my comment is still correct (assuming you overlook the fact that I conflated star systems with stars).
I agree with you entirely and I'll take it one step further: software patents are ludicrous because they don't physically affect their environment (not directly, but their effectors may which in turn may or may not be patentable, but not the software). In the past, things like mechanical weaving machines could be patented because it provided a mechanical tool to ease a specific labor (in this case weaving). For the sake of argument, suppose someone discovered that the weaving machine could be used to, for example, sort threads. This novel application of the weaving machine should not be patentable. This is exactly what software patents are: an application of a tool. The one thing that should be patentable is the tool that makes the execution of software possible (i.e. the computer), the way that this tool is used should not be.
Pandora's box was opened the minute a "thinking" machine was created, then everyone and their dog tried to patent the different ways in which this machine could be used, not really building something new, but finding novel ways use for it. In the extreme, we might as well allow patents on methods for bashing things with a rock.
This also seems like an example of re-distribution of cost. I only skimmed TFA, and I didn't see any indication that this change is across the board or just high-school or what, but if it includes K-6, then two-income families are going to have to invest in putting their kids in some form of daycare one day a week so they can continue going to work. Which I'm sure when you account for all the kids that will be in daycare may add up to quite a bit more than $50,000/year. This seems like bad economics to me. On the other hand, some enterprising parents may open up home daycares for extra scratch and the increased demand may drive down the cost of daycare (yeah right), but I don't expect that will very much offset the $50,000+ in lost revenue for the other families.
Oooh a termination clause - now they're afraid!
Technically it's a reinstatement clause that is at issue here. The GPLv2 already has a termination clause.
Remember the sign on the exit door from the polling station that read "if you did not participate, you've forfeited your right to complain"? OK, it's a metaphorical sign, but the problem is a general one.
They should re-think the location of that sign. Presumably if you're in the polling station, you've participated. Those who don't participate will never actually see the sign, then complain vociferously not knowing that they've forfeited their right to do so.
This system has the same problem as photo-radar speed traps: you can identify the vehicle, but not necessarily the driver.
Seems to me that if the data gathered from the TV is correlated to users on-line utilizing the same internet connection, it should be possible for someone to get some idea of what other people in the same household have been watching (or possibly are watching at the time, which if you are clever can be done remotely). This could also become annoying for others in the household. For example: I could be watching football while my girlfriend surfs the internet. Even though she might be on the internet to avoid watching football, will she be bombarded with football related advertisement?
The stock being down does not change the fact that most people probably can't afford to buy stock at $364/share.
The fact that Apple stock is hovering around $364 at the moment is probably stopping quite a few people from buying it.
Canada is replacing their paper currency with plastic, for example, and it has a much better carbon footprint, in part because the plastic does not break down and thus does not release carbon into the atmosphere.
But that also means that what goes into the landfill does not biodegrade...
You waited until now to tell me that I could find cash in a landfill?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you meant things other than currency that wind up in the landfill, however, this is the kind of mistake that will probably surface often in life cycle analysis studies: modeling the effects of one thing with another thing and assuming they are equivalent.
Am I the only person who finds it odd that a former Microsoft employee is named Window?
One thing that I found interesting in the article is the idea that governments would not be too keen on having mini nuclear reactors roaming around on freeways due to the threat of terrorism. However, an interesting potential corollary is that the apparent motivating factor for modern terrorism could be eliminated since there would no longer be any need to occupy foreign nation states to secure their oil reserves. Granted this is not the only motivating factor, but it makes for interesting brain gymnastics.
Motorola made the first mobile call in 1973, 3 years before Apple existed
Maybe Motorola should remind Apple that the very first Macintosh was powered by a Motorola 6809E microprocessor. Could this be an example of biting the hand that feeds (or has fed)?
I'm more interested in how this will affect my humping USB dog: https://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/usb-gadgets/9c89/
I'm not sure what definition of importer you're using, but if the US was a big importer of cinnamon, wouldn't it be more widely used than cassia bark? That is of course unless cinnamon is one of those rare-earth elements we're referring to.
When children do this, pharmaceuticals encourage us to pump them full of medication. When adults do it, it's art (or possibly evolution).
Didn't they also do this in Gone in 60 Seconds (the modern Nicholas Cage version). Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein
The adiabatic effect will take care of this. Although I'm not sure how much cooling will happen in 2600 feet, which is large in the context artificial structures but not so much in the context of mountains where the adiabatic cooling caused by orographic lift results in snow. On the other hand, considering the initial temperature of the air mass at the bottom of the structure (due to the greenhouse), the effect may be more "effective".