You are correct that location affects price. That's why, for instance, Cushing OK has lower gas ($0.10 to $0.15/gal) prices than surrounding areas, because the existing Keystone pipeline terminates there.
You're arguing that increased production can significantly change prices on a local level, and that delivery costs are a big issue. If that was the case, no one would care if the XL pipeline is extended from Cushing to the Gulf--which is in progress. The purpose of adding that leg is to get oil to the refineries AND shipping terminals there. That $0.10-$0.15/gal loss in revenue is enough to make the expense of running the pipeline worth it to the oil companies. They plan to refine and ship product from the Gulf. That will increase gas prices in the Cushing area. Increased local production will cause global demand to shift delivery origins/destinations enough to limit the local effect.
Yes, this is just a concept, nothing more. Further, as written there's no way to check its progress. There are systems available that use GPS and a transmitter to periodically send position data to a satellite. It's not likely we're going to get live images.
Even if it's successfully built and launched, a lot could go wrong and it's likely no one would ever know why.
College grads are having trouble for the same reason. Why not just hire a somewhat more expensive older worker rather than paying too much to train someone who might not work out?
So ask some of those "somewhat more expensive" older workers how easy it is finding work is right now.
Your logic sucks on that one, which makes me question your entire argument.
Apple has the right to license their non-FRAND patents or to not license them, as they chose. That is how the patent system works. FRAND patents, such as those being wielded by Motorola and Samsung, however, MUST be licensed to EVERYONE and ANYONE who wants to license them for FAIR and REASONABLE NON-DISCRIMINATORY rates. And, currently, they aren't.
I guess some people have an issue with Apple using non-FRAND patents to hammer Motorola and then claim that Mot must license their FRAND patents to Apple at a 'reasonable' rate. It seems to me that it's fair and reasonable to charge a high rate for my FRAND patents to someone who's charging me a high rate for their non-FRAND patents. Just because I might have patents in FRAND shouldn't tie my hands when dealing with someone who wants their cake (high fees on non-FRAND patents) and eat it too (low rates on FRAND patents they need). In other words, how is it discriminatory for me to charge a high rate to someone who charges me a high rate too?
It wouldn't be OK for me to charge a high rate to Apple for FRAND patents if I was also licensing FRAND patents from them, and I was charging that high rate because Apple was also charging me for non-FRAND patents as well.
I would argue that represents a skill shortage. If wages are in an upward spiral because all the companies who want the skilled workers keep bidding each other up on the same pool of workers, that's a shortage. More trained people would yield more employment in this scenario.
(This is what's happening to developers in silicon valley right now. There is basically zero unemployment for good software developers right now. Things are so bad I can't even find qualified people to take interviews, which is sort of a prerequisite to make them that upwardly spiraling offer. As another point of evidence, new grad offers are now roughly 2.5X the national average for other BS degrees.)
Isn't that the point of this discussion? As wages go up for a particular field, more people get degrees in that field. If there are more people than jobs, then wages go down, decreasing the number of new people getting degrees in that field.
Now of course the article indicated that employers don't want to hire someone right out of school, but that's an different issue. Maybe they wouldn't be reluctant to hire right out of school if starting wages and pay increases made it attractive for those people to stay on. If you're afraid that you're going to train them and then they'll just leave, maybe you need to look at why they want to leave rather than refuse to train new hires.
Ah, hang on. I can remember when the railways were de-nationalised in this country. The morons who got the control suddenly decided that people who used bicycles were going to have to pay for their tickets and their bike's space on the train.
So the people who had bikes had a choice, use the bike or use the car.
Uh, so the bikes take up space that could otherwise be used by paying passengers, but you don't think you should pay more? So if someone rides the train but doesn't take a bike with them, they should subsidize those who do by paying the same?
You're either using a poor analogy to make your point or you don't seem willing to acknowledge the concept of paying for what you use. Unlike the railroads, nVidia is in competition and is trying to keep a competitive edge. We may disagree with them on how they are doing that, and we are free to criticize them. They are free to ignore us, and we are free to take our business elsewhere.
IIRC, federal law requires that automakers use common codes for certain diagnostics but manufacturer-specific codes do not have to be disclosed. Remember a few years back with the Toyota uncommanded-acceleration issue? There was something of a stink about how only someone from the factory could read out the crash data that Toyota, along with many other car manufacturers, record.
In your case, having the codes doesn't necessarily help, other than obvious "we replaced your ABS controller because the codes said you had a MAF lean code" stuff. But sometimes the actual problem isn't readily apparent from the codes that are thrown.
More on topic, the law generally isn't going to get involved unless there's some issue with restricted competition. For cars, it's dealers versus independent auto mechanics that are driving the laws regarding diagnostic codes. For graphic cards, I don't see how that could apply. No one has been making money providing third-party graphics drivers and are now in jeopardy because of nVidia's closed systems.
This is a fairly minor event in the grand scheme of things, but is rather symptomatic of the "brush under the carpet" attitude of the authorities in the UK - hopefully this particular event will make other authorities sit up and listen.
You have more faith in people and human nature than I do.
I think the lunch ladies need to learn what hyperbole is, since that's what I got from the line in the newspaper article.
It was pointed out by the council that the meals pictured in the blog were a small part of what's offered and was not the main meal that's offered. That being said, the girl could easily point that out on her blog.
Of course, in an ideal world, we wouldn't need unions because business owners would actually work to provide safe working conditions and want their employees to share in the profits. But as someone pointed out long ago, people tend to identify with those that the are around the most. For business, this means that the CEO makes sure that those around him are given the lions-share of the profits, while those he'd never even recognize as an employee if they passed on the street get what little is left over. It's human nature.
The Internet requires a financial burden to be placed on several other parties in order to work... even when they have no direct interest in the data being transferred.
Sure that have an interest. All parties involved in that data transfer charge their customers for that service. You don't really think that connecting to an international trunk is free do you?
It's a war of attrition: 1) A bill is submitted, public outrage ensues, legislators back off support, the bill dies. 2) A new, slightly different bill is submitted. 3) . Goto 1. Oops, forgot to put in the "public finally gets tired of hearing about it, less and less outrage, a bill finally passes" exit from the loop. Lobbyists never quit.
There was even talk that the Democrats would use a trick called "Deem and Pass" to simply "Deem" the bill passed WITHOUT taking a vote on it. Yep, that's right; The Democrats, not the Republicans wanted to suspend the democratic process and simply force through a bill they wanted because people opposed it.
"Deem and Pass" does not mean that the bill is passed without taking a vote. It means that the house votes on both what debate is allowed on a bill and on the bill at the same time. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/explaining_deem_and_pass.html Two votes are generally taken on each bill, the first as to how much debate is allowed and the second on the bill itself. So every bill must be voted on by the house to pass. How does that suspend the democratic process?
They want you on-line during play so that even if you copied the disk, you'll have to pay to play. IMO, they should sell the distribution disk for cost and have people pay to 'activate' and play on-line. If you have the bandwidth they could let you download the image at no charge rather than buy the disk. This model does kind of suck for games that could be played off-line, but that's the way I expect them to go. You don't need copy protection--the disk is worthless unless you have a paid account. Kills GameStop/used market.
E.g. six months of on-line access at $10/month instead of $60 for the disk. Another option would be to charge $60 for the disk and with that you get six months on-line access. Dollars vary; they want some average amount from each user and they'll base the access/month charge based upon how long they think the game will hold the average player's attention. Might even help the quality of the games since they'll want you to keep playing as long as possible.
i wonder why they didnt unstrap, crack open the hatch, and parachute to safety in their full pressure suits, while the cabin was in freefall, and probably spinning, in the 2 minutes before they hit the water, as per that reference you have?
Think about this:
Mt. Everest is roughly 5.5 miles high. These "high surface features" are a little short of 2x that height and the satellites will fly roughly one Mt. Everest over that (equivalent to the cruising altitude of a commercial airliner).
Now imagine that you will have the good fortune of standing on that surface feature watching it fly by at roughly 36,000 km/h or roughly 50x faster than a commercial airliner.
Mmm. At 110,000 meters above the surface of the moon, it should be orbiting at about 1,630m/s or 5864km/h, not 36,000km/h.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct that location affects price. That's why, for instance, Cushing OK has lower gas ($0.10 to $0.15/gal) prices than surrounding areas, because the existing Keystone pipeline terminates there.
You're arguing that increased production can significantly change prices on a local level, and that delivery costs are a big issue. If that was the case, no one would care if the XL pipeline is extended from Cushing to the Gulf--which is in progress. The purpose of adding that leg is to get oil to the refineries AND shipping terminals there. That $0.10-$0.15/gal loss in revenue is enough to make the expense of running the pipeline worth it to the oil companies. They plan to refine and ship product from the Gulf. That will increase gas prices in the Cushing area. Increased local production will cause global demand to shift delivery origins/destinations enough to limit the local effect.
So obviously the goal of the oil companies would be to keep the price somewhere between $3.75/gal and $4.50/gal.
It's basically the same service a tow truck and garage provides on Earth, except in space.
Except when we don't, it ends up in somebody's front yard, on blocks.
Yes, this is just a concept, nothing more. Further, as written there's no way to check its progress. There are systems available that use GPS and a transmitter to periodically send position data to a satellite. It's not likely we're going to get live images.
Even if it's successfully built and launched, a lot could go wrong and it's likely no one would ever know why.
Wealth is direct proof of one's contributions and value to society.
Bernard Madoff
College grads are having trouble for the same reason. Why not just hire a somewhat more expensive older worker rather than paying too much to train someone who might not work out?
So ask some of those "somewhat more expensive" older workers how easy it is finding work is right now.
Your logic sucks on that one, which makes me question your entire argument.
Step 2: Narcissistic and psychopathic tendancies ..keep it rolling people, we can establish a framework here.
Rolling how far? Godwin's law?
Apple has the right to license their non-FRAND patents or to not license them, as they chose. That is how the patent system works. FRAND patents, such as those being wielded by Motorola and Samsung, however, MUST be licensed to EVERYONE and ANYONE who wants to license them for FAIR and REASONABLE NON-DISCRIMINATORY rates. And, currently, they aren't.
I guess some people have an issue with Apple using non-FRAND patents to hammer Motorola and then claim that Mot must license their FRAND patents to Apple at a 'reasonable' rate. It seems to me that it's fair and reasonable to charge a high rate for my FRAND patents to someone who's charging me a high rate for their non-FRAND patents. Just because I might have patents in FRAND shouldn't tie my hands when dealing with someone who wants their cake (high fees on non-FRAND patents) and eat it too (low rates on FRAND patents they need). In other words, how is it discriminatory for me to charge a high rate to someone who charges me a high rate too?
It wouldn't be OK for me to charge a high rate to Apple for FRAND patents if I was also licensing FRAND patents from them, and I was charging that high rate because Apple was also charging me for non-FRAND patents as well.
I would argue that represents a skill shortage. If wages are in an upward spiral because all the companies who want the skilled workers keep bidding each other up on the same pool of workers, that's a shortage. More trained people would yield more employment in this scenario.
(This is what's happening to developers in silicon valley right now. There is basically zero unemployment for good software developers right now. Things are so bad I can't even find qualified people to take interviews, which is sort of a prerequisite to make them that upwardly spiraling offer. As another point of evidence, new grad offers are now roughly 2.5X the national average for other BS degrees.)
Isn't that the point of this discussion? As wages go up for a particular field, more people get degrees in that field. If there are more people than jobs, then wages go down, decreasing the number of new people getting degrees in that field.
Now of course the article indicated that employers don't want to hire someone right out of school, but that's an different issue. Maybe they wouldn't be reluctant to hire right out of school if starting wages and pay increases made it attractive for those people to stay on. If you're afraid that you're going to train them and then they'll just leave, maybe you need to look at why they want to leave rather than refuse to train new hires.
Ah, hang on. I can remember when the railways were de-nationalised in this country. The morons who got the control suddenly decided that people who used bicycles were going to have to pay for their tickets and their bike's space on the train.
So the people who had bikes had a choice, use the bike or use the car.
Uh, so the bikes take up space that could otherwise be used by paying passengers, but you don't think you should pay more? So if someone rides the train but doesn't take a bike with them, they should subsidize those who do by paying the same?
You're either using a poor analogy to make your point or you don't seem willing to acknowledge the concept of paying for what you use. Unlike the railroads, nVidia is in competition and is trying to keep a competitive edge. We may disagree with them on how they are doing that, and we are free to criticize them. They are free to ignore us, and we are free to take our business elsewhere.
IIRC, federal law requires that automakers use common codes for certain diagnostics but manufacturer-specific codes do not have to be disclosed. Remember a few years back with the Toyota uncommanded-acceleration issue? There was something of a stink about how only someone from the factory could read out the crash data that Toyota, along with many other car manufacturers, record.
In your case, having the codes doesn't necessarily help, other than obvious "we replaced your ABS controller because the codes said you had a MAF lean code" stuff. But sometimes the actual problem isn't readily apparent from the codes that are thrown.
More on topic, the law generally isn't going to get involved unless there's some issue with restricted competition. For cars, it's dealers versus independent auto mechanics that are driving the laws regarding diagnostic codes. For graphic cards, I don't see how that could apply. No one has been making money providing third-party graphics drivers and are now in jeopardy because of nVidia's closed systems.
This is a fairly minor event in the grand scheme of things, but is rather symptomatic of the "brush under the carpet" attitude of the authorities in the UK - hopefully this particular event will make other authorities sit up and listen.
You have more faith in people and human nature than I do.
I think the lunch ladies need to learn what hyperbole is, since that's what I got from the line in the newspaper article.
It was pointed out by the council that the meals pictured in the blog were a small part of what's offered and was not the main meal that's offered. That being said, the girl could easily point that out on her blog.
This crap is beginning to make me wonder if I should re-evaluate the usefulness of visiting /.
Please mod up this post!
Of course, in an ideal world, we wouldn't need unions because business owners would actually work to provide safe working conditions and want their employees to share in the profits. But as someone pointed out long ago, people tend to identify with those that the are around the most. For business, this means that the CEO makes sure that those around him are given the lions-share of the profits, while those he'd never even recognize as an employee if they passed on the street get what little is left over. It's human nature.
Sure _they_ have an interest.
The Internet requires a financial burden to be placed on several other parties in order to work... even when they have no direct interest in the data being transferred.
Sure that have an interest. All parties involved in that data transfer charge their customers for that service. You don't really think that connecting to an international trunk is free do you?
It's a war of attrition: 1) A bill is submitted, public outrage ensues, legislators back off support, the bill dies. 2) A new, slightly different bill is submitted. 3) . Goto 1. Oops, forgot to put in the "public finally gets tired of hearing about it, less and less outrage, a bill finally passes" exit from the loop. Lobbyists never quit.
Oh for mod points to +1 Funny.
What, cutting a piece of somebody's words distorts the meaning?
Who knew?
Surely you can't be suggesting a Congressman would do that.
FTFY
+1 Funny either way.
There was even talk that the Democrats would use a trick called "Deem and Pass" to simply "Deem" the bill passed WITHOUT taking a vote on it. Yep, that's right; The Democrats, not the Republicans wanted to suspend the democratic process and simply force through a bill they wanted because people opposed it.
"Deem and Pass" does not mean that the bill is passed without taking a vote. It means that the house votes on both what debate is allowed on a bill and on the bill at the same time. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/explaining_deem_and_pass.html Two votes are generally taken on each bill, the first as to how much debate is allowed and the second on the bill itself. So every bill must be voted on by the house to pass. How does that suspend the democratic process?
They want you on-line during play so that even if you copied the disk, you'll have to pay to play. IMO, they should sell the distribution disk for cost and have people pay to 'activate' and play on-line. If you have the bandwidth they could let you download the image at no charge rather than buy the disk. This model does kind of suck for games that could be played off-line, but that's the way I expect them to go. You don't need copy protection--the disk is worthless unless you have a paid account. Kills GameStop/used market.
E.g. six months of on-line access at $10/month instead of $60 for the disk. Another option would be to charge $60 for the disk and with that you get six months on-line access. Dollars vary; they want some average amount from each user and they'll base the access/month charge based upon how long they think the game will hold the average player's attention. Might even help the quality of the games since they'll want you to keep playing as long as possible.
i wonder why they didnt unstrap, crack open the hatch, and parachute to safety in their full pressure suits, while the cabin was in freefall, and probably spinning, in the 2 minutes before they hit the water, as per that reference you have?
Just answering your question dude.
The inflight bailout system was implemented after the Challenger accident.
Think about this: Mt. Everest is roughly 5.5 miles high. These "high surface features" are a little short of 2x that height and the satellites will fly roughly one Mt. Everest over that (equivalent to the cruising altitude of a commercial airliner). Now imagine that you will have the good fortune of standing on that surface feature watching it fly by at roughly 36,000 km/h or roughly 50x faster than a commercial airliner.
Mmm. At 110,000 meters above the surface of the moon, it should be orbiting at about 1,630m/s or 5864km/h, not 36,000km/h.