According to the NHTSA, it IS the same as 2 cars going 60mph hitting head on. See http://auto.howstuffworks.com/crash-test2.htm, I can't find where it says that on NHTSA's site directly, but I know I've heard that before.
Not only that, but the sound may reflect off the surface or the bottom one minute, and then not reflect the next, and are refracted by the different temperatures in each layer of water, causing wide variations in round trip distance and time. Delay is also not symmetrical (due to the possible reflections, refractions, and temperature differences), so you can't just divide RTT/2 to find out the one-way travel time. Its going to be very hard to get the error below 1%, so you'd have to have these beacons VERY close together (like every 10km) to get any sort of meaningful position estimate.
Considering allofmp3.com currently can not accept payments anymore (and couldn't for the past few months) which really sucks, I think the RIAA has won that round.
I usually have mine adjusted so I can see a very tiny sliver of the door. Otherwise it is hard to gauge how far you are from something on the side of your car if you are backing up or pulling into a tight spot... is that right or am I missing something?
yes, certainly don't want to underestimate the idiots. However, I can't count how many times somebody has almost side-swiped me w/o checking their blind spot, or how many times I've had to hit my brakes a little harder b/c of something in front of me than if I did not glance to check my blind spot. Maybe they could just dedicate a 1-2" x 1-2" of your mirror (the bottom rightmost part that is usually just showing you a reflection of your door) to your blind spot, it would be small enough to keep people from using it to gauge anything other than that something other than the road is in their blind spot.
I think his point is that drivers side mirrors have a blind spot, which causes who knows how many accidents, but its illegal for manufacturers to make the mirrors in a different way, which is why K-Mart sells those little $2 stick-on convex mirrors. Seems like a lot more engineering time is spent on things like heated/cooled beverage holders than would be needed to design a better side mirror, I don't know the law but I'd assume thats why manufacturers haven't improved them. Of course, if somebody (the manufacturers) lobbied hard enough for it, I'm sure the DOT would change their mind.
well, the subsidies have to come from somewhere, hence the tax on the corresponding unhealthy product. maybe juice/soda isn't the perfect example (although juice is at the very least slightly healthier), but there are lots of others and the point is still the same.
The problem with the only incentive being that people will saved money after a year or two is that a lot of people either don't care enough or don't have the available cash to spend a few extra bucks on a fluorescent bulb.
What should be done is tax incandescent bulbs so they are more expensive, and use the tax to discount the price of fluorescents. Then people are encouraged to make the "right" decision, but are not forced.
The same thing should be done, IMHO, with many other things. For example, 2 liters of soda costs $1 but 1/2 gallon of real 100% juice costs like $3. Many low-fat foods cost more than mostly identical regular-fat foods. Whole-grain bread, rice, etc. is more expensive than super-processed, bleached white bread, rice, etc. A bag of fresh vegetables easily costs $5, and a bag of candy is $2. That should not be the case, since the cost to society is greater than the low price indicates. Someone who only has $1 to spend for their kids' drinks should not have to choose between soda and 95% sugar water. Car manufacturers should not be able to offer gas guzzling pickup trucks & big suvs for less than a more fuel-efficient vehicle because they have too much stock, as if its some surprise that gas prices keep going up and they couldn't predict this before they made them.
I agree bans are not the answer, but definitely tax the unhealthy, unnecessary, damaging, etc. stuff and rebate the better, but currently more expensive, option.
Why should we have to opt out from being cached, why can't we opt in instead? Here's an idea, if you have a Belgium domain, Google should NOT cache or index your website unless you provide a robots.txt saying what can & can't be indexed & cached, just to be safe so Google doesn't do something it doesn't have permission to do. Then Google will probably get sued for unfair business practices or whatever for not indexing websites of people who are too lazy to write robots.txt or find it easier (and cheaper??) to just hire some lawyers than edit a text file.
The GP is right. The current default, free publicity by indexing/caching your entire public website unless you specify otherwise via robots.txt, makes the most sense and that is why it is used. The courts need to wake up. If a company wants to dictate something other than the default (note that these companies are NOT complaining about Google indexing their content!), they can easily do it so the courts shouldn't be meddling with things.
How does closing a plant mean they don't care about workers? How about some details, like were they just let go, did they get a nice severance package, etc.?
They may not be perfect, but I can't easily find any dirt on them, and you can't seem to be able to either. That probably puts them in the top 1% of companies. You are welcome to prove me wrong, but so far you haven't.
Called them up twice because one of their guaranteed for life tupperware container cracked in my dish washer on 2 separate occasions (similar size/type). They apologized, suggested putting them on the upper dishwasher rack to reduce the chance of this happening, and sent me a coupon good on anything rubbermaid up to the value of the thing that broke. I asked how I needed to send in the broken container (which their warranty terms say you have to do), and they said I didn't have to because they trusted that I was telling the truth.
Otherwise, never had a problem with any of their stuff and the only remotely bad thing that I know of that they did was try to get retirees of a company they bought to pay $40/mo for health insurance.
If you really wanted to, you could include a sync preamble like is done in many wireless physical layer protocols (might negate any efficiency gains though), or use an encoding like is used in CDs to ensure you don't end up with too long a string of all 1's or all 0's that the clock drift/differences cause ambiguity (less efficient than no encoding, but possibly better than manchester).
Sorry to ruin your joke, but that would work if you used Unipolar Baseband Signaling (send 1 volt for a "1" bit, 0 volts for a "0" bit).
You could also use a light on dark color scheme instead of dark on light (i.e., the white background & black text most websites use) if your monitor uses less energy for darker pixels (which I believe some types actually do).
The method proposed in TFA doesn't exactly inspire any confidence that they have a good idea... Stranger things have been tried like pushing railroad cars into a hole in the Susquehanna River. Thats basically the inverse of the problem they've got, so who knows.
I think if their plan is just to slow the flow to buy time to make a way to channel the mud someplace then its worth attempting. Otherwise, they're just delaying the inevitable.
I don't get their plan of "throw 1 in, wait & see what happens, then throw 2 in, wait & see what happens, etc.". They should just dump in everything they've got as fast as possible, otherwise they won't be able to get ahead of the erosion.
Pressure builds Why will the pressure build? (This is a legitimate question that I'm hoping to get an answer to because I don't know what the answer is)
This isn't a real volcano (the kind fueled by lava & other hot things moving around deep inside the earth)... they just drilled in a place/way they shouldn't have and sprang a leak.
Sounds like the proper analogy is if you drill a hole in a compressed air tank (assuming it doesn't explode!). If you plug the hole back up with something, sure there will be pressure on whatever you use to plug it with but not any more than there was on the part you removed when you made the hole. No pressure is building...
I was at a conference a few months ago and had lunch with someone from Iran. He talked about how he was unhappy with how Iran's president was pissing off the rest of the world, etc. He said he voted for him, but he likened the election to being given a choice between two spoons, clean ones which he took from the table and held up. Maybe one is a little shinier, but they're both spoons. And he lamented how people guessed wrong and they are now stuck with some crazy guy for 4 years.
I've not been able to vote for too many presidents, but I can't say I was ever thrilled with either of the 2 spoons... er, candidates.
1) We spend billions of dollars and kill millions to fight terrorism and oppressive dictators in various countries, "because its the right thing".
2) We make drugs illegal and drug dealers import them from said countries instead of growing them here & taxing the crap out of them, and we manufacture billions of $$ of weapons and when they're not top-of-the-line anymore or we just have too many, we sell them to random places and they end up in the same said countries. I'd imagine all that money & ammo has some effect on our success in #1.
Policy doesn't have to be logically consistent, it has to create/perpetuate a self-sustaining system in the short/medium term.
(not the way I'd do it, just telling it like it is)
FTB:
The term "substantial restrictions on Internet freedom" means actions that restrict or punish the free availability of information via the Internet for reasons other than legitimate foreign law enforcement purposes So does this mean that when the MPAA/RIAA tell country X to block something even though none of country X's laws say they have to (in this case foreign refers to country X not the USA), that said country is restricting Internet Freedom?
When I was in high school (late 90's), citing any website was forbidden, even if the website had peer-reviewed information... although conveniently that meant it was probably published on paper and you could cite it as a regular source after looking at the PDF online...
I think it depends on the topic, the student knows Wikipedia is not 100% accurate so if some fact was found on Wikipedia and its wrong, the student should just be penalized for not checking their source properly if the fact is important enough for the professor/teacher to get pissed about.
Right, its not possible/legal today which is the main problem...
The fake card # would be flagged somehow, since the point is that the phisher WANTS to use the card at a legitimate merchant (otherwise its worthless). Attempting to process the card would alert the merchant to not fulfill the transaction (no money lost) but they could tell the phisher the order was successful or that item is out of stock or make up some other excuse, and by the time the phisher knows what hit him, the cops show up at his door.
If they can be stopped before they've spent a few grand of some old lady's money on motorcycles (using phished legitimate card #s), then both CC companies AND merchants will be very happy about this.
The most effective way to do it is to give the spammer a legitimate-looking but fake response. By response, I don't mean email.
For example, if you get a phishing email for bank XYZ which directs you to a page asking for your name, SSN, account #, credit card #, phone #, etc. type in some junk and hit submit. Then you are GUARANTEED that the spammer will get your junk.
It would be GREAT if there was an easy way to trap the spammer with this information, instead of telling the authorities about it (who are VERY slow in my experience and obviously not very effective). For example, call your credit card company & report a card as stolen, and enter that # on the phishing form (I'm not condoning this!). Or, enter bogus contact info and enter some government agency or the bank's REAL phone number, maybe they will call it, etc.
Sort of like virtual card #'s that the big issues use now... you generate an identity ONLY to be used to trap these losers, and when they attempt to use it, they get caught. There are a lot of missing pieces to my cunning plan, but you get the idea.
Are you seriously picturing pirates going around mugging people just to get the media files off of their digital devices? Maybe. If the files are worth $1/song, and someone has 1000 songs on their MP3 player, thats $1,000. I think its enough money that it would be worth it for some people to steal them.
The problem really is that only 1 single copy needs to be stolen and then posted on the internet, and then it can be shared freely without the people doing the sharing being easily tracked.
What, do you run Windows? I realize this is intended as a joke, and my wife's PC does use windows (and she has a copy of or access to most of our music from that PC), but I think you are missing the point.
Its not a matter of stealing electronically, its somebody gets mugged or leaves their portable MP3 player laying around, and suddenly the files are on the internet. Microsoft can get away with tracking windows serial #'s to a particular user, because people (generally) just have them on a sticker on their PC case or whatever.
As soon as people are carrying these uniquely identified files with them everywhere they go (which everyone *will* do), the scheme will be useless since tons of copies will be stolen. So then we'll need a way to report MP3s as stolen, and then what, do we get a new unique ID'd copy for free? Whats to stop people from falsely reporting them stolen, and there's no way to prevent someone from playing an MP3 even if its been reported stolen.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the NHTSA, it IS the same as 2 cars going 60mph hitting head on. See http://auto.howstuffworks.com/crash-test2.htm, I can't find where it says that on NHTSA's site directly, but I know I've heard that before.
Not only that, but the sound may reflect off the surface or the bottom one minute, and then not reflect the next, and are refracted by the different temperatures in each layer of water, causing wide variations in round trip distance and time. Delay is also not symmetrical (due to the possible reflections, refractions, and temperature differences), so you can't just divide RTT/2 to find out the one-way travel time. Its going to be very hard to get the error below 1%, so you'd have to have these beacons VERY close together (like every 10km) to get any sort of meaningful position estimate.
Considering allofmp3.com currently can not accept payments anymore (and couldn't for the past few months) which really sucks, I think the RIAA has won that round.
I usually have mine adjusted so I can see a very tiny sliver of the door. Otherwise it is hard to gauge how far you are from something on the side of your car if you are backing up or pulling into a tight spot... is that right or am I missing something?
yes, certainly don't want to underestimate the idiots. However, I can't count how many times somebody has almost side-swiped me w/o checking their blind spot, or how many times I've had to hit my brakes a little harder b/c of something in front of me than if I did not glance to check my blind spot. Maybe they could just dedicate a 1-2" x 1-2" of your mirror (the bottom rightmost part that is usually just showing you a reflection of your door) to your blind spot, it would be small enough to keep people from using it to gauge anything other than that something other than the road is in their blind spot.
I think his point is that drivers side mirrors have a blind spot, which causes who knows how many accidents, but its illegal for manufacturers to make the mirrors in a different way, which is why K-Mart sells those little $2 stick-on convex mirrors. Seems like a lot more engineering time is spent on things like heated/cooled beverage holders than would be needed to design a better side mirror, I don't know the law but I'd assume thats why manufacturers haven't improved them. Of course, if somebody (the manufacturers) lobbied hard enough for it, I'm sure the DOT would change their mind.
well, the subsidies have to come from somewhere, hence the tax on the corresponding unhealthy product. maybe juice/soda isn't the perfect example (although juice is at the very least slightly healthier), but there are lots of others and the point is still the same.
The problem with the only incentive being that people will saved money after a year or two is that a lot of people either don't care enough or don't have the available cash to spend a few extra bucks on a fluorescent bulb.
What should be done is tax incandescent bulbs so they are more expensive, and use the tax to discount the price of fluorescents. Then people are encouraged to make the "right" decision, but are not forced.
The same thing should be done, IMHO, with many other things. For example, 2 liters of soda costs $1 but 1/2 gallon of real 100% juice costs like $3. Many low-fat foods cost more than mostly identical regular-fat foods. Whole-grain bread, rice, etc. is more expensive than super-processed, bleached white bread, rice, etc. A bag of fresh vegetables easily costs $5, and a bag of candy is $2. That should not be the case, since the cost to society is greater than the low price indicates. Someone who only has $1 to spend for their kids' drinks should not have to choose between soda and 95% sugar water. Car manufacturers should not be able to offer gas guzzling pickup trucks & big suvs for less than a more fuel-efficient vehicle because they have too much stock, as if its some surprise that gas prices keep going up and they couldn't predict this before they made them.
I agree bans are not the answer, but definitely tax the unhealthy, unnecessary, damaging, etc. stuff and rebate the better, but currently more expensive, option.
The GP is right. The current default, free publicity by indexing/caching your entire public website unless you specify otherwise via robots.txt, makes the most sense and that is why it is used. The courts need to wake up. If a company wants to dictate something other than the default (note that these companies are NOT complaining about Google indexing their content!), they can easily do it so the courts shouldn't be meddling with things.
How does closing a plant mean they don't care about workers? How about some details, like were they just let go, did they get a nice severance package, etc.?
They may not be perfect, but I can't easily find any dirt on them, and you can't seem to be able to either. That probably puts them in the top 1% of companies. You are welcome to prove me wrong, but so far you haven't.
Rubbermaid.
Called them up twice because one of their guaranteed for life tupperware container cracked in my dish washer on 2 separate occasions (similar size/type). They apologized, suggested putting them on the upper dishwasher rack to reduce the chance of this happening, and sent me a coupon good on anything rubbermaid up to the value of the thing that broke. I asked how I needed to send in the broken container (which their warranty terms say you have to do), and they said I didn't have to because they trusted that I was telling the truth.
Otherwise, never had a problem with any of their stuff and the only remotely bad thing that I know of that they did was try to get retirees of a company they bought to pay $40/mo for health insurance.
If you really wanted to, you could include a sync preamble like is done in many wireless physical layer protocols (might negate any efficiency gains though), or use an encoding like is used in CDs to ensure you don't end up with too long a string of all 1's or all 0's that the clock drift/differences cause ambiguity (less efficient than no encoding, but possibly better than manchester).
Sorry to ruin your joke, but that would work if you used Unipolar Baseband Signaling (send 1 volt for a "1" bit, 0 volts for a "0" bit).
You could also use a light on dark color scheme instead of dark on light (i.e., the white background & black text most websites use) if your monitor uses less energy for darker pixels (which I believe some types actually do).
I think if their plan is just to slow the flow to buy time to make a way to channel the mud someplace then its worth attempting. Otherwise, they're just delaying the inevitable.
I don't get their plan of "throw 1 in, wait & see what happens, then throw 2 in, wait & see what happens, etc.". They should just dump in everything they've got as fast as possible, otherwise they won't be able to get ahead of the erosion.
This isn't a real volcano (the kind fueled by lava & other hot things moving around deep inside the earth)... they just drilled in a place/way they shouldn't have and sprang a leak.
Sounds like the proper analogy is if you drill a hole in a compressed air tank (assuming it doesn't explode!). If you plug the hole back up with something, sure there will be pressure on whatever you use to plug it with but not any more than there was on the part you removed when you made the hole. No pressure is building...
I was at a conference a few months ago and had lunch with someone from Iran. He talked about how he was unhappy with how Iran's president was pissing off the rest of the world, etc. He said he voted for him, but he likened the election to being given a choice between two spoons, clean ones which he took from the table and held up. Maybe one is a little shinier, but they're both spoons. And he lamented how people guessed wrong and they are now stuck with some crazy guy for 4 years.
I've not been able to vote for too many presidents, but I can't say I was ever thrilled with either of the 2 spoons... er, candidates.
You're confused?
1) We spend billions of dollars and kill millions to fight terrorism and oppressive dictators in various countries, "because its the right thing".
2) We make drugs illegal and drug dealers import them from said countries instead of growing them here & taxing the crap out of them, and we manufacture billions of $$ of weapons and when they're not top-of-the-line anymore or we just have too many, we sell them to random places and they end up in the same said countries. I'd imagine all that money & ammo has some effect on our success in #1.
Policy doesn't have to be logically consistent, it has to create/perpetuate a self-sustaining system in the short/medium term.
(not the way I'd do it, just telling it like it is)
really? Both my parents and grandparents could not cite websites when they were in high school.
When I was in high school (late 90's), citing any website was forbidden, even if the website had peer-reviewed information... although conveniently that meant it was probably published on paper and you could cite it as a regular source after looking at the PDF online...
I think it depends on the topic, the student knows Wikipedia is not 100% accurate so if some fact was found on Wikipedia and its wrong, the student should just be penalized for not checking their source properly if the fact is important enough for the professor/teacher to get pissed about.
actually they are a registrar, but only for com/net/org
Right, its not possible/legal today which is the main problem...
The fake card # would be flagged somehow, since the point is that the phisher WANTS to use the card at a legitimate merchant (otherwise its worthless). Attempting to process the card would alert the merchant to not fulfill the transaction (no money lost) but they could tell the phisher the order was successful or that item is out of stock or make up some other excuse, and by the time the phisher knows what hit him, the cops show up at his door.
If they can be stopped before they've spent a few grand of some old lady's money on motorcycles (using phished legitimate card #s), then both CC companies AND merchants will be very happy about this.
The most effective way to do it is to give the spammer a legitimate-looking but fake response. By response, I don't mean email.
For example, if you get a phishing email for bank XYZ which directs you to a page asking for your name, SSN, account #, credit card #, phone #, etc. type in some junk and hit submit. Then you are GUARANTEED that the spammer will get your junk.
It would be GREAT if there was an easy way to trap the spammer with this information, instead of telling the authorities about it (who are VERY slow in my experience and obviously not very effective). For example, call your credit card company & report a card as stolen, and enter that # on the phishing form (I'm not condoning this!). Or, enter bogus contact info and enter some government agency or the bank's REAL phone number, maybe they will call it, etc.
Sort of like virtual card #'s that the big issues use now... you generate an identity ONLY to be used to trap these losers, and when they attempt to use it, they get caught. There are a lot of missing pieces to my cunning plan, but you get the idea.
The problem really is that only 1 single copy needs to be stolen and then posted on the internet, and then it can be shared freely without the people doing the sharing being easily tracked.
Its not a matter of stealing electronically, its somebody gets mugged or leaves their portable MP3 player laying around, and suddenly the files are on the internet. Microsoft can get away with tracking windows serial #'s to a particular user, because people (generally) just have them on a sticker on their PC case or whatever.
As soon as people are carrying these uniquely identified files with them everywhere they go (which everyone *will* do), the scheme will be useless since tons of copies will be stolen. So then we'll need a way to report MP3s as stolen, and then what, do we get a new unique ID'd copy for free? Whats to stop people from falsely reporting them stolen, and there's no way to prevent someone from playing an MP3 even if its been reported stolen.