Have you SEEN the latest carrier loads for say the I-Phone? Can you say carrier bloat ware is everywhere? And that doesn't even go into what software Apple shoves on their devices. Don't get me started on Android devices....
You think the Chi-coms would be some how worse than a for profit company like Apple or AT&T? I'm not so sure.
It may be MY handset, but I'd be a fool to believe that anything I put on it or access though it is secure from my Carrier or Apple's prying eyes.
Or... Maybe the government of China will subsidize this enough they can be successful?
Seriously, bring on the clones. Let's have some competition. I'm pretty tired of dropping almost $1k on a smart phone. Crazy price if you ask me. Maybe a bit of competition will bring phone prices down some and drive innovation...
It WAS the ACA.... When you increase coverages, costs go up... The ACA invalidated a large swath of healthcare plans, ON PURPOSE.
What happened is the democrats had to have the ACA come heck or high water and they where NOT listening to republicans objections, which included THIS VERY THING. Republicans where saying these things, but democrats where not listening because they didn't need to.
NOW you are acting surprised by what is happening? Can we check the political bias at the door and actually discuss stuff rationally? This unilateral partisanship stuff is killing this country....
LOL... I'd suggest you go back and look at the message where this all started for me....
You know, the one where I was responding to somebody calling Obama a liar, where I didn't actually say he was, but gave out his own words and asked the reader to figure out for themselves what they thought. I'm guessing you agree, he lied, full knowing the truth. Then when he was called on it, he doubled down.
That Trump is doing as bad a job as Obama did in countering this threat.
Trump = Obama = Bush = Clinton
So you'd have him do what? Start a shooting war over this? Send Putin a strongly worded memo? Perhaps a UN security council action?
I don't think there is much we CAN do but monitor the activity and deal with any of it that runs counter to our law and happens where we have jurisdiction. Well that and make sure the electronic systems we used are hardened so they cannot easily mess with them from Moscow....
I'm just curious... What could Putin possibly have on Trump that is worse than what we already KNOW about him? And remember, Trump will have to actually care that the "goods" remain secret for Putin to have any leverage...
I mean that "Access Hollywood" tape business was pretty bad, but even that isn't enough. You are going to need some really nasty stuff to keep this nightmare of yours alive..
The REALLY nasty stuff is hard to hide for very long and we've had a special council looking at this for the last year.... I'm thinking it's looking like a pipe dream...
HILLARY WAS A BAD CANDIDATE, WORSE THAN TRUMP. THE END
Come on.. Let's be fair here... Both where pretty bad...
But I get your point... Hillary did have a lot going for her. Former Senator, Former Secretary of State and Former first lady with experience on her resume the envy of the field. She could talk a good game, had polish and was adept at political speak when cornered. Nobody could touch her it was her election to lose..... EXCEPT....
In walks Donald Trump, exactly zero elections to his name, no government experience on his resume. He's no politician, he has a brash temper, a big mouth and a knack for saying things he shouldn't in anger. He got in twitter fights over stupid stuff and basically played the roll of a lose cannon in a hurricane. This guy couldn't win an election for dog catcher...
So WHAT happened? Just look at history...
Hillary got out flanked by a rank amateur, like happened before. She floundered on that E-mail foolishness by arrogantly assuming she could just sweep it away with a series of white lies, but even worse, she believed her own press releases, she believed the national polling and she acted like she could coast to victory like she had in the primaries over Sanders. Hillary's problem was she didn't think she could lose, so she didn't really try all that hard. (Either that or she really WAS that sick during the campaign and *couldn't* physically keep up the pace.) This was EXACTLY what cost her the primary win 8 years previously, to a new comer again, the junior senator from Illinois, even though she'd been in the Senate longer.
Really, Trump didn't win it, Hillary lost an election she *should* have easily won...
So the question you have to ask yourself here is this. Why? Was it because Hillary didn't campaign well or because the 13 Russians spent a few hundred thousand on Facebook ads?
The promises had no qualifiers.... The maker of the promises CLEARLY said what he said and even when questioned about any qualifiers was clear that there where none, by restating his promises and adding "PERIOD!" to them.
In my experience, the promises where not fulfilled...
I knew at the time the truth of what was being promised, as did most of those who opposed the ACA. We KNEW there where going to be "qualifiers" added to these statements and promises being made at a later date which is why he was pressed on this, and why, for political reasons, he was forced to double down and add "PERIOD" to his promises to get the thing passed, full knowing the obvious truth of the matter wasn't what he was saying.
To that end, I won't allow you or anybody else to subsequently add the necessary qualifiers to these statements to make them true. The opportunity to add qualifiers to the promises ended the first time the word "period" was uttered. Face it, it was a PR campaign driven by political forces and that was why the plain truth of this very complex 1200 page law had to be overly simplified, over promised and the actual truths ignored. So.. the politician did what they usually do and told everybody that the ends justified the means, we have to pass this or we will lose the support of our voters and thus lose power...
My employer's plan was deemed to be out of compliance with the ACA's minimum required coverage and was discontinued by the Insurance company that offered it. Yea, there was a "grandfather" clause but in reality any plan that failed to meet the minimum coverage requirements was doomed to be discontinued because insurance companies couldn't enroll any new members in non-conforming plans. End result was? I couldn't keep my plan..
We got a new plan, which had a different list of "in network" physicians. Sure, I could have kept my doctor, but I would have been paying "out of network" rates for the privilege. So the end result was? Because I lost my plan, I had to change doctors...
So where was my $2,500 savings? I have a family of 4... OH? You are saying that I saw that because my health care costs didn't go UP as much as they otherwise would have? Likely story... Political spin.. Everybody knew what he was saying would happen, it didn't happen. Now you just want to spin it so it doesn't look bad.
Again, Yours is political spin. My experience isn't unique, it happened to many people just like me.. Which is why the ACA has such large unfavorable polls.
So I don't consider the safety net perfect, but we DO have one in the USA, or we did before the ACA...
I'm glad things worked out for your mom, but what safety net are you talking about? Hoping that a private hospital will just write off most of your bills is not a safety net. Welfare and Medicaid are helpful, but they don't really do anything to prevent bankruptcy - just to keep you warm and fed while you try and get back on your feet (if you can still walk).
There is Welfare and Medicaid for a safety net. I'm not saying it's pleasant to fall into or perfect in how it happens, but it is a safety net. We also have a situation where nobody can be denied lifesaving medical care, regardless of their ability to pay. If you walk into the ER (or call 911 and they bring you), you get any necessary medical care. That's a safety net too.
Like I've been saying here, nothing is perfect.. But the safety net exists, such as it is. Bankruptcy law is part of that safety net too. We don't throw folks into debtor's prisons anymore...
Wow, similar story here. Mom moved in with us and went on hospice care too. She lived with us for about 3 months. They didn't try to come after us... But we had established that she was on Welfare, paying me rent (which we never collected) and on Medicare and Medicaid.
I wonder why they thought they could come after your house, unless she had some kind of interest in it, or she had given you the proceeds from the sale of her assets within the last 5 years.
Many times Medicaid/Medicare likes to come after the estate's assets and goes back 5 years looking for pre-death transfers of assets to others. This keeps people from willy nilly transferring their assets to their heirs just as they get sick and fall back on Medicaid and Medicare to foot all the costs. We had actually transferred all my mother's assets out of her name far enough back that they didn't try this on us. But we also didn't sell the asset and bust up the proceeds for a few years either.
It happened to my mother, who got cancer and had no insurance or assets to speak of. Where it WAS a difficult situation for her financially, she didn't have to go bankrupt, but she did end up on welfare and Medicaid while she was disabled. The hospital wrote off a LOT of her medical costs before Medicaid kicked in.
So I don't consider the safety net perfect, but we DO have one in the USA, or we did before the ACA...
We can hope, but conventional wisdom says they make gains in the House at least. The Senate though, I seriously doubt anything of consequence changes there given the seats coming up for relection.
OK.. I'll take that as a, "I was incorrect" statement.
That both parties left the situation uncorrected is not a valid charge to lay at one party's feet as you did. The GOP isn't any more responsible for your perceived failings than the democrats are.
Remember the political reality here, only ONE party has had total control of both houses of congress AND the White House in the last two decades. That one party could have "fixed" anything they considered important enough to act on and the other party couldn't have stopped them if they tried. I'll leave it to you to work out which party is which here...
... is that anything done through it can be undone through it.
Executive orders are easy for the next administration to reverse, just issue a new order. Enact regulations though the administrative processes, can also be undone using the administrative process....
However you *cannot* redo a regulation which was reversed using the CRA process easily, because then it takes an act of congress to undo the act of congress, literally. It's like you passed a law that says "Congress forbids you from making a regulation like that".
In Fact, some have suggested that this feature should be used to prevent regulations... You have the agency issue regulations you don't want or like, then you get a CRA on them enacted, and presto.... The agency may NOT issue regulations which are like the ones reversed by a CRA. It's a backwards way to keep regulations from being made. Sounds stupid to me, but the law could be used that way.
The CRA doesn't need the approval of the House of Representatives.
Ummm... Yes, it does.
A CRA is basically a joint resolution of both houses of congress so it does have to pass both the House and Senate within 60 days of the regulation change it seeks to reverse. It must also be signed by the president or a veto overridden by a 2/3rds vote.
However, It makes me wonder if the CRA law would actually apply here. The CRA law was obviously not written with the intent to stop a regulation from being withdrawn although I don't see that use being specifically excepted by the text. I'm guessing that should this CRA actually be enacted (a snowballs chance I know) it would be challenged in court to test this.
It WILL fail the vote in the House, if not the Senate.
But it's the silly election season with the three ring circus in full swing so we will get all sorts of pointless political posturing purporting importance.
Wires/conductors are limited in *current* carrying capacity, not power transfer capacity. There is always raising the voltage to get more power at the same current.....
The issue with charging rates has to do with the safe operating voltage that can be used at the rated current of the wires and connectors and more importantly the rate at which the battery can accept a charge and not overheat. It's actually the battery that is the biggest limiter here.
"The reason for the discrepancy is not yet clear."
Uhmmm..... Electric motors display maximum torque at stall
Um... Not always.... In fact, often the maximum torque is defiantly NOT at motor stall for many common electric motor designs. Synchronous induction motors have zero torque at stall and standard induction AC motors often need help to get started by temporally adjusting the current phase of some windings to kick them forward.
DC motors tend to be highest current draw at stall and many have high torque when running slow. For Tesla's drive motors, I'm guessing the stalled torque is pretty high by design but they are not really DC driven, but are really AC motors driven by variable frequency and phases. With these motors you are able to adjust the torque in/out independently of RPM by varying the frequency and phase of the various windings.
I'm going to bet that the discrepancy really has more to do with the motor and drive electronics limits of both voltage and current and the power dissipation of the system. You will lose system efficiency at high currents because I^2 x R losses when the motor is turning slow.
Not really... It's having a minimum of satellites in view. If it was a signal strength issue, you could just turn up the transmit power or use antennas with gain. Neither of these solutions would work because you need a *direct* line of sight to the GPS transmitter, anything short of that is going to give you zero signal, regardless of the transmit power or receiving antenna gain.
It's the same in your car or going though a tunnel, you don't have a direct line of sight to enough satellites to calculate a solution.
Actually... The GPS doesn't work for a related but different reason than you'd think. It's not signal strength...
You need 3 or more satellites in view of your receiver antenna in order to calculate a solution of your position. That's why it needs to be near the window. The body of the aircraft effectively blocks the RF from the GPS satellites, the windows don't. But moving closer to the window doesn't improve the reception, it only puts more of the sky in view which may let you hear more satellites. The signal strength will likely be better at altitude for the satellites you can see, not worse for being in an airplane.
Yes this is a, Minor conceptual issue, but the distinction could be important.
Yes.... Aluminum and carbon composite tubes are pretty good faraday cages and you will be moving pretty fast compared to the guy sitting at home, so it might be hard to get and keep a reliable connection to a satellite service.
Your cell phone won't even be able to make a phone call from a commercial airliner at cruse. The cell tower antennas are all pointed at the ground and not you, plus you will be moving too fast for the MSC's to keep up if you happened to get a signal long enough on one of the antenna lobes.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you SEEN the latest carrier loads for say the I-Phone? Can you say carrier bloat ware is everywhere? And that doesn't even go into what software Apple shoves on their devices. Don't get me started on Android devices....
You think the Chi-coms would be some how worse than a for profit company like Apple or AT&T? I'm not so sure.
It may be MY handset, but I'd be a fool to believe that anything I put on it or access though it is secure from my Carrier or Apple's prying eyes.
Or... Maybe the government of China will subsidize this enough they can be successful?
Seriously, bring on the clones. Let's have some competition. I'm pretty tired of dropping almost $1k on a smart phone. Crazy price if you ask me. Maybe a bit of competition will bring phone prices down some and drive innovation...
It WAS the ACA.... When you increase coverages, costs go up... The ACA invalidated a large swath of healthcare plans, ON PURPOSE.
What happened is the democrats had to have the ACA come heck or high water and they where NOT listening to republicans objections, which included THIS VERY THING. Republicans where saying these things, but democrats where not listening because they didn't need to.
NOW you are acting surprised by what is happening? Can we check the political bias at the door and actually discuss stuff rationally? This unilateral partisanship stuff is killing this country....
LOL... I'd suggest you go back and look at the message where this all started for me....
You know, the one where I was responding to somebody calling Obama a liar, where I didn't actually say he was, but gave out his own words and asked the reader to figure out for themselves what they thought. I'm guessing you agree, he lied, full knowing the truth. Then when he was called on it, he doubled down.
That Trump is doing as bad a job as Obama did in countering this threat.
Trump = Obama = Bush = Clinton
So you'd have him do what? Start a shooting war over this? Send Putin a strongly worded memo? Perhaps a UN security council action?
I don't think there is much we CAN do but monitor the activity and deal with any of it that runs counter to our law and happens where we have jurisdiction. Well that and make sure the electronic systems we used are hardened so they cannot easily mess with them from Moscow....
I'm just curious... What could Putin possibly have on Trump that is worse than what we already KNOW about him? And remember, Trump will have to actually care that the "goods" remain secret for Putin to have any leverage...
I mean that "Access Hollywood" tape business was pretty bad, but even that isn't enough. You are going to need some really nasty stuff to keep this nightmare of yours alive..
The REALLY nasty stuff is hard to hide for very long and we've had a special council looking at this for the last year.... I'm thinking it's looking like a pipe dream...
HILLARY WAS A BAD CANDIDATE, WORSE THAN TRUMP. THE END
Come on.. Let's be fair here... Both where pretty bad...
But I get your point... Hillary did have a lot going for her. Former Senator, Former Secretary of State and Former first lady with experience on her resume the envy of the field. She could talk a good game, had polish and was adept at political speak when cornered. Nobody could touch her it was her election to lose..... EXCEPT....
In walks Donald Trump, exactly zero elections to his name, no government experience on his resume. He's no politician, he has a brash temper, a big mouth and a knack for saying things he shouldn't in anger. He got in twitter fights over stupid stuff and basically played the roll of a lose cannon in a hurricane. This guy couldn't win an election for dog catcher...
So WHAT happened? Just look at history...
Hillary got out flanked by a rank amateur, like happened before. She floundered on that E-mail foolishness by arrogantly assuming she could just sweep it away with a series of white lies, but even worse, she believed her own press releases, she believed the national polling and she acted like she could coast to victory like she had in the primaries over Sanders. Hillary's problem was she didn't think she could lose, so she didn't really try all that hard. (Either that or she really WAS that sick during the campaign and *couldn't* physically keep up the pace.) This was EXACTLY what cost her the primary win 8 years previously, to a new comer again, the junior senator from Illinois, even though she'd been in the Senate longer.
Really, Trump didn't win it, Hillary lost an election she *should* have easily won...
So the question you have to ask yourself here is this. Why? Was it because Hillary didn't campaign well or because the 13 Russians spent a few hundred thousand on Facebook ads?
To which I say....
The promises had no qualifiers.... The maker of the promises CLEARLY said what he said and even when questioned about any qualifiers was clear that there where none, by restating his promises and adding "PERIOD!" to them.
In my experience, the promises where not fulfilled...
I knew at the time the truth of what was being promised, as did most of those who opposed the ACA. We KNEW there where going to be "qualifiers" added to these statements and promises being made at a later date which is why he was pressed on this, and why, for political reasons, he was forced to double down and add "PERIOD" to his promises to get the thing passed, full knowing the obvious truth of the matter wasn't what he was saying.
To that end, I won't allow you or anybody else to subsequently add the necessary qualifiers to these statements to make them true. The opportunity to add qualifiers to the promises ended the first time the word "period" was uttered. Face it, it was a PR campaign driven by political forces and that was why the plain truth of this very complex 1200 page law had to be overly simplified, over promised and the actual truths ignored. So.. the politician did what they usually do and told everybody that the ends justified the means, we have to pass this or we will lose the support of our voters and thus lose power...
Dude... How clueless do you have to be?
My employer's plan was deemed to be out of compliance with the ACA's minimum required coverage and was discontinued by the Insurance company that offered it. Yea, there was a "grandfather" clause but in reality any plan that failed to meet the minimum coverage requirements was doomed to be discontinued because insurance companies couldn't enroll any new members in non-conforming plans. End result was? I couldn't keep my plan..
We got a new plan, which had a different list of "in network" physicians. Sure, I could have kept my doctor, but I would have been paying "out of network" rates for the privilege. So the end result was? Because I lost my plan, I had to change doctors...
So where was my $2,500 savings? I have a family of 4... OH? You are saying that I saw that because my health care costs didn't go UP as much as they otherwise would have? Likely story... Political spin.. Everybody knew what he was saying would happen, it didn't happen. Now you just want to spin it so it doesn't look bad.
Again, Yours is political spin. My experience isn't unique, it happened to many people just like me.. Which is why the ACA has such large unfavorable polls.
So I don't consider the safety net perfect, but we DO have one in the USA, or we did before the ACA...
I'm glad things worked out for your mom, but what safety net are you talking about? Hoping that a private hospital will just write off most of your bills is not a safety net. Welfare and Medicaid are helpful, but they don't really do anything to prevent bankruptcy - just to keep you warm and fed while you try and get back on your feet (if you can still walk).
There is Welfare and Medicaid for a safety net. I'm not saying it's pleasant to fall into or perfect in how it happens, but it is a safety net. We also have a situation where nobody can be denied lifesaving medical care, regardless of their ability to pay. If you walk into the ER (or call 911 and they bring you), you get any necessary medical care. That's a safety net too.
Like I've been saying here, nothing is perfect.. But the safety net exists, such as it is. Bankruptcy law is part of that safety net too. We don't throw folks into debtor's prisons anymore...
Wow, similar story here. Mom moved in with us and went on hospice care too. She lived with us for about 3 months. They didn't try to come after us... But we had established that she was on Welfare, paying me rent (which we never collected) and on Medicare and Medicaid.
I wonder why they thought they could come after your house, unless she had some kind of interest in it, or she had given you the proceeds from the sale of her assets within the last 5 years.
Many times Medicaid/Medicare likes to come after the estate's assets and goes back 5 years looking for pre-death transfers of assets to others. This keeps people from willy nilly transferring their assets to their heirs just as they get sick and fall back on Medicaid and Medicare to foot all the costs. We had actually transferred all my mother's assets out of her name far enough back that they didn't try this on us. But we also didn't sell the asset and bust up the proceeds for a few years either.
Has this ever happened to someone you know?
It happened to my mother, who got cancer and had no insurance or assets to speak of. Where it WAS a difficult situation for her financially, she didn't have to go bankrupt, but she did end up on welfare and Medicaid while she was disabled. The hospital wrote off a LOT of her medical costs before Medicaid kicked in.
So I don't consider the safety net perfect, but we DO have one in the USA, or we did before the ACA...
Unless you are calling him a liar.
If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor..
If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.
It will save a family of 4 $2,500/year.
I have a new doctor on a new plan and my healthcare costs went up... You decide what to call him.
We can hope, but conventional wisdom says they make gains in the House at least. The Senate though, I seriously doubt anything of consequence changes there given the seats coming up for relection.
OK.. I'll take that as a, "I was incorrect" statement.
That both parties left the situation uncorrected is not a valid charge to lay at one party's feet as you did. The GOP isn't any more responsible for your perceived failings than the democrats are.
Remember the political reality here, only ONE party has had total control of both houses of congress AND the White House in the last two decades. That one party could have "fixed" anything they considered important enough to act on and the other party couldn't have stopped them if they tried. I'll leave it to you to work out which party is which here...
NN will not solve the real issue. The REAL issue is that the GOP continues to grant Monopolies to companies like Comcast and continue to support them.
Citation please? When and where did "{Republicans} grant Monopolies to {snip} Comcast"?
... is that anything done through it can be undone through it.
Executive orders are easy for the next administration to reverse, just issue a new order. Enact regulations though the administrative processes, can also be undone using the administrative process....
However you *cannot* redo a regulation which was reversed using the CRA process easily, because then it takes an act of congress to undo the act of congress, literally. It's like you passed a law that says "Congress forbids you from making a regulation like that".
In Fact, some have suggested that this feature should be used to prevent regulations... You have the agency issue regulations you don't want or like, then you get a CRA on them enacted, and presto.... The agency may NOT issue regulations which are like the ones reversed by a CRA. It's a backwards way to keep regulations from being made. Sounds stupid to me, but the law could be used that way.
The CRA doesn't need the approval of the House of Representatives.
Ummm... Yes, it does.
A CRA is basically a joint resolution of both houses of congress so it does have to pass both the House and Senate within 60 days of the regulation change it seeks to reverse. It must also be signed by the president or a veto overridden by a 2/3rds vote.
See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
However, It makes me wonder if the CRA law would actually apply here. The CRA law was obviously not written with the intent to stop a regulation from being withdrawn although I don't see that use being specifically excepted by the text. I'm guessing that should this CRA actually be enacted (a snowballs chance I know) it would be challenged in court to test this.
It WILL fail the vote in the House, if not the Senate.
But it's the silly election season with the three ring circus in full swing so we will get all sorts of pointless political posturing purporting importance.
Wires/conductors are limited in *current* carrying capacity, not power transfer capacity. There is always raising the voltage to get more power at the same current.....
The issue with charging rates has to do with the safe operating voltage that can be used at the rated current of the wires and connectors and more importantly the rate at which the battery can accept a charge and not overheat. It's actually the battery that is the biggest limiter here.
"The reason for the discrepancy is not yet clear." Uhmmm..... Electric motors display maximum torque at stall
Um... Not always.... In fact, often the maximum torque is defiantly NOT at motor stall for many common electric motor designs. Synchronous induction motors have zero torque at stall and standard induction AC motors often need help to get started by temporally adjusting the current phase of some windings to kick them forward.
DC motors tend to be highest current draw at stall and many have high torque when running slow. For Tesla's drive motors, I'm guessing the stalled torque is pretty high by design but they are not really DC driven, but are really AC motors driven by variable frequency and phases. With these motors you are able to adjust the torque in/out independently of RPM by varying the frequency and phase of the various windings.
I'm going to bet that the discrepancy really has more to do with the motor and drive electronics limits of both voltage and current and the power dissipation of the system. You will lose system efficiency at high currents because I^2 x R losses when the motor is turning slow.
Not really... It's having a minimum of satellites in view. If it was a signal strength issue, you could just turn up the transmit power or use antennas with gain. Neither of these solutions would work because you need a *direct* line of sight to the GPS transmitter, anything short of that is going to give you zero signal, regardless of the transmit power or receiving antenna gain.
It's the same in your car or going though a tunnel, you don't have a direct line of sight to enough satellites to calculate a solution.
But you say toe-may-toe, I say ta-ma-toe...
Actually ... The GPS doesn't work for a related but different reason than you'd think. It's not signal strength...
You need 3 or more satellites in view of your receiver antenna in order to calculate a solution of your position. That's why it needs to be near the window. The body of the aircraft effectively blocks the RF from the GPS satellites, the windows don't. But moving closer to the window doesn't improve the reception, it only puts more of the sky in view which may let you hear more satellites. The signal strength will likely be better at altitude for the satellites you can see, not worse for being in an airplane.
Yes this is a, Minor conceptual issue, but the distinction could be important.
Yes.... Aluminum and carbon composite tubes are pretty good faraday cages and you will be moving pretty fast compared to the guy sitting at home, so it might be hard to get and keep a reliable connection to a satellite service.
LOL.. I'll bet you it doesn't..
Your cell phone won't even be able to make a phone call from a commercial airliner at cruse. The cell tower antennas are all pointed at the ground and not you, plus you will be moving too fast for the MSC's to keep up if you happened to get a signal long enough on one of the antenna lobes.
You *Might* get a call off below 10,000 feet and