Probably because you spend most of your time in areas with good coverage and think that present prices for minutes are cheap. I am presuming that better regulation could actually result in even lower prices (which I would claim is a good thing for consumers), and better overall coverage.
Watts are instantaneous and measure power. That this relates to energy over time is a side issue that arises from the apparent consistency of the universe. The names are only misleading if you aren't interested in understanding physics (demanding that time be introduced to measure and compare power makes things more complicated, not less).
I guess a unit of energy called the CDU (that's consumer dumbass unit) could be introduced. The CDU would be a unit of energy, and instead of watts, lightbulbs (or whatever) would be rated in terms of CDU/hour.
Sure. The roaming minutes do represent an ongoing cost though, as opposed to the regular minutes, which are essentially a fixed cost, so part of the high charges is to discourage use.
The U.S. cellular system is a disaster anyway; the FCC should have licensed two networks and then regulated the shit out of them (basically, let them have customer facing operations, but force them to sell bulk rate airtime at or near cost). Instead, we have 3.5 incomplete networks. The huge investment in CDMA was nice for the rest of the world though.
It wasn't just Cingular, it was the company that they were buying the airtime from.
Virgin Mobile skirts the problem by *only* working on Sprint's network. You simply don't have the option to use other networks, even if Sprint doesn't have coverage.
See, each company only has towers in some areas, and you probably actually have less coverage with Virgin than you did with Cingular+roaming.
Maybe you had a regional plan (where you get more minutes for less money, in exchange for less coverage), but I bet that it was a tower issue.
The names are fine. Joules are inconveniently small for measuring energy at the scales used by computers. Watts and watt-hours make is simple to relate the power consumption of a device to the cost of running it over a period of time.
I suppose you also have a problem with units like miles-per-gallon, which combines distance and volume into a figure that is convenient for estimating and comparing consumption?
I suppose you could be talking about phosphate runoff, but that has as much to do with farming practices as it does the particular source of the fertilizer.
The core problem isn't 'car companies' or 'national vehicle policies', it is that for the last 30 years, the unions have been paid with promises, instead of real dollars.
The car companies should have been able to figure out that this was a bad recipe, and the unions should never have accepted it (they aren't going to get what they were promised...), and I'm not real sure that the accounting surrounding it should be legal, but for a long time, it worked really well for the management of the companies, and the shareholders of the companies, as they were able to pretend that the financial condition of the companies was pretty good.
If they weren't trying to pay off promises that didn't make any sense, they wouldn't need huge amounts of financing to survive.
The endgame is that people will play video games using the processing power built into their T.V.s, or some other cheap, ubiquitous appliance.
There are only [pick a number] graphics generations left. A short period after the last useful graphics generation, every craptastic television will be able to run all the software from that period. It could take decades, and it might not ever happen (can Intel keep it up?), but I don't see people paying $1,000 in 10 years, to upgrade from the PS4 to the PS5, when the difference between the games is negligible.
The problem is that there is an upper limit on the scale of the process (unless you want to start competing with them for fresh beans), so all that has to happen for it to be a useless investment is for someone else to come up with a marginally cheaper process that can be scaled arbitrarily (it appears that algae farms can be scaled arbitrarily, the only question is the price where the farms are cost competitive with traditional supplies).
Ship freight is significantly more efficient than truck freight. Significantly. And it uses cheaper fuel.
After that, much of the overland transport is done using pipes, which are even more efficient.
Finally, the U.S. only derives ~1/3 of it's oil from places that are far away (roughly 55% of the oil consumed in the U.S. is produce in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, and Venezuela makes up the difference).
If the price for something like butanol ends up being cheaper than biodiesel, people won't worry about the difference in efficiency.
(butanol has some significant advantages over ethanol; the only disadvantage is that it isn't as easy to brew, but biodiesel faces that same problem when you talk about making it from varied feedstocks...)
I suppose if everybody always agreed about everything (that's EAAAE for those playing along at home), there wouldn't be situations where one person behaved in a way that they thought was appropriate and another person thought was profoundly inappropriate.
Do you mean a manned mission? I'm pretty sure that planetary probes, landers and all, would have been hot on the heels of rockets, moon or no. Literally, "LET'S TRY IT!".
If you mean a manned mission, well, there hasn't been one yet.
In my area, AT&T offers to punch you in the face (that is, there aren't enough people around for them to bother upgrading infrastructure to support DSL, so dial-up and satellite are the options; it's hard to complain too loudly, because it is clear that it isn't worth it to them, but that is what those stupid gub'mint fees are for...).
Slashdot Mirror
Probably because you spend most of your time in areas with good coverage and think that present prices for minutes are cheap. I am presuming that better regulation could actually result in even lower prices (which I would claim is a good thing for consumers), and better overall coverage.
Watts are instantaneous and measure power. That this relates to energy over time is a side issue that arises from the apparent consistency of the universe. The names are only misleading if you aren't interested in understanding physics (demanding that time be introduced to measure and compare power makes things more complicated, not less).
I guess a unit of energy called the CDU (that's consumer dumbass unit) could be introduced. The CDU would be a unit of energy, and instead of watts, lightbulbs (or whatever) would be rated in terms of CDU/hour.
I don't game the system, and I don't think about it much, it is just obvious.
It is quite likely that I have been at "Excellent" longer than you have had an (or that anyway,) account...
Okay, then you almost certainly signed up for a regional plan in order to get more minutes/dollar (versus a national plan)
AT&T will sell you either, so you are basically complaining that they offer the option.
Sure. The roaming minutes do represent an ongoing cost though, as opposed to the regular minutes, which are essentially a fixed cost, so part of the high charges is to discourage use.
The U.S. cellular system is a disaster anyway; the FCC should have licensed two networks and then regulated the shit out of them (basically, let them have customer facing operations, but force them to sell bulk rate airtime at or near cost). Instead, we have 3.5 incomplete networks. The huge investment in CDMA was nice for the rest of the world though.
"The researchers have contacted John McCain and fully intend to return the brain to him."
It wasn't just Cingular, it was the company that they were buying the airtime from.
Virgin Mobile skirts the problem by *only* working on Sprint's network. You simply don't have the option to use other networks, even if Sprint doesn't have coverage.
See, each company only has towers in some areas, and you probably actually have less coverage with Virgin than you did with Cingular+roaming.
Maybe you had a regional plan (where you get more minutes for less money, in exchange for less coverage), but I bet that it was a tower issue.
The names are fine. Joules are inconveniently small for measuring energy at the scales used by computers. Watts and watt-hours make is simple to relate the power consumption of a device to the cost of running it over a period of time.
I suppose you also have a problem with units like miles-per-gallon, which combines distance and volume into a figure that is convenient for estimating and comparing consumption?
The "How much Monday" is an accurate quote from the article, not a typo in the /. post.
Just how much Monday do you think you are currently wasting?
What?
Toxic chemical fertilizer is an oxymoron.
I suppose you could be talking about phosphate runoff, but that has as much to do with farming practices as it does the particular source of the fertilizer.
The core problem isn't 'car companies' or 'national vehicle policies', it is that for the last 30 years, the unions have been paid with promises, instead of real dollars.
The car companies should have been able to figure out that this was a bad recipe, and the unions should never have accepted it (they aren't going to get what they were promised...), and I'm not real sure that the accounting surrounding it should be legal, but for a long time, it worked really well for the management of the companies, and the shareholders of the companies, as they were able to pretend that the financial condition of the companies was pretty good.
If they weren't trying to pay off promises that didn't make any sense, they wouldn't need huge amounts of financing to survive.
The endgame is that people will play video games using the processing power built into their T.V.s, or some other cheap, ubiquitous appliance.
There are only [pick a number] graphics generations left. A short period after the last useful graphics generation, every craptastic television will be able to run all the software from that period. It could take decades, and it might not ever happen (can Intel keep it up?), but I don't see people paying $1,000 in 10 years, to upgrade from the PS4 to the PS5, when the difference between the games is negligible.
The problem is that there is an upper limit on the scale of the process (unless you want to start competing with them for fresh beans), so all that has to happen for it to be a useless investment is for someone else to come up with a marginally cheaper process that can be scaled arbitrarily (it appears that algae farms can be scaled arbitrarily, the only question is the price where the farms are cost competitive with traditional supplies).
Ship freight is significantly more efficient than truck freight. Significantly. And it uses cheaper fuel.
After that, much of the overland transport is done using pipes, which are even more efficient.
Finally, the U.S. only derives ~1/3 of it's oil from places that are far away (roughly 55% of the oil consumed in the U.S. is produce in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, and Venezuela makes up the difference).
If the price for something like butanol ends up being cheaper than biodiesel, people won't worry about the difference in efficiency.
(butanol has some significant advantages over ethanol; the only disadvantage is that it isn't as easy to brew, but biodiesel faces that same problem when you talk about making it from varied feedstocks...)
You drive to Michigan for the $0.10 deposit.
I'm not nit picking. The other post is pretty confident in what it says, so I'm actually curious if I am misinformed.
I thought the whole point of a winmodem was that there wasn't a DSP in it (and that junky printers don't have raster engines, it's in the driver).
The problem you are describing is human nature.
I suppose if everybody always agreed about everything (that's EAAAE for those playing along at home), there wouldn't be situations where one person behaved in a way that they thought was appropriate and another person thought was profoundly inappropriate.
What? There isn't any recourse available. I could move, but that isn't currently in the plan.
Do you mean a manned mission? I'm pretty sure that planetary probes, landers and all, would have been hot on the heels of rockets, moon or no. Literally, "LET'S TRY IT!".
If you mean a manned mission, well, there hasn't been one yet.
Right, so who cares, what's the big deal?
In my area, AT&T offers to punch you in the face (that is, there aren't enough people around for them to bother upgrading infrastructure to support DSL, so dial-up and satellite are the options; it's hard to complain too loudly, because it is clear that it isn't worth it to them, but that is what those stupid gub'mint fees are for...).
Give Canada some credit, eh.
Alternatively, Blame Canada.