They optimize for cost, and since they're still using UPS and FedEx in many cases, that means the USPS costs are higher than these privately run companies.
I think the article is overstating the case, accounting is a somewhat subjective endeavor, and USPS rates make profit on some runs while taking a loss on others - putting the whole Amazon.com postal load on First Class mail is a gross oversimplification.
It's not of negligible significance if the existing infrastructure is vulnerable to this kind of attack on a widespread basis. If all you need is an ordinary car and a small bit of kit to take over a commercial broadcast station, that's a pretty significant weakness.
If the receiver required some kind of crypto-key in a sideband or sub-channel, at least they could automatically shut down broadcast when they've been pwned. It sounds funny, but if a few dozen people got together and took over greater London radio to broadcast some kind of War of the Worlds thing, it could cause as much damage from panic as any bomb.
The computer is an awesome tool, but the lecture hall didn't evolve to work with outside competition for students' attention - not surprising that a shift in the structure of something that has evolved over hundreds of years for a singular purpose has diminished its efficiency at achieving that purpose.
Now, if we want to think about re-imagining the lecture hall with consideration of the computer as an available tool... what's the increase in efficiency of distribution of information for a professor sitting in his office to be able to lecture to 500 students distributed around the globe, with in-lecture support from 50 teaching assistants who can answer questions 1:1 in real-time, as compared to making everyone relocate themselves on a particular campus and live there for years to accomplish a similar purpose? Certainly, there will be loss of many things that living on a university campus provides, but on balance, for the same investment of time and money, which way could deliver better education to the same set of interested people? Which way can offer access to more students of lesser financial status? Which way can reduce the carbon footprint of education, probably by a factor of 100:1?
That number will be up from 71% to over 80% emitted by the top 100.
The number of corporate entities doing the emission is irrelevant, the total emission is what matters. So, if you suddenly killed Exxon/Mobil tomorrow, their emissions would just be transferred over to whatever company picks up their business, almost seamlessly.
What's needed is for the economic framework to reward lower carbon emissions.
"Do my bathroom scale, air quality monitor, and cloud database really need to talk to each other to improve my life?"
Some things just haven't evolved into their final "appliance" form yet, like pets.com when they advertised in the Superbowl, they might be an idea with some merit, but it will take some revision before they can really serve a meaningful number of people in a meaningful way.
I often wonder how accurate the estimates of the gravitational lensing effect are... I mean, I'm sure there are dozens of PhDs based on methods "to be sure within +/- BS" of what they are seeing, but there are enough variables and unknowns in these methods to easily have a "whoops, missed this one" moment, several times.
Your CC# has always been vulnerable at the endpoints, whether or not it gets trawled up with a million others in a hacking scheme is a much smaller risk.
Been paying for stuff online since 1999, frequency of CC number changes is about the same pre and post... occasional bogus charge shows up, call the company, charge is reversed and we get new card numbers... no drama, minor hassle, way better than mailing checks.
Stan Lee lives a different life than most people. I'm sure Joan was and is very important to him, but he's not lacking for any kind of company he wants - in fact, I'm rather sure he has full-time staff to regulate how much social interaction reaches him throughout each day.
If Whole Foods had a bonafide better offer, they would have taken it.
Not too many players out there with $14B+ to spend on a 20% premium over market price.
Whipping the whole thing up in the press would have created a temporary spike in the share price, probably higher than $42 per share, but it would have been short lived, and people with $14B+ to invest know this.
Anecdotally, contractor neighbors of ours moved to the Carolina mountains a couple of years ago. They've got plenty of work up there doing construction, maintenance, etc. - but all their clients, and most people they meet are on disability - not included in U4.
I suppose it makes sense: if you don't need a job, you can move somewhere nice that doesn't have many.
Translation: I've got better ways to improve society than launching litigation against a doctor whose removal from practice might, or might not improve the overall state of healthcare.
Who's factoring in the waste management costs of coal? Fly ash piles, atmospheric distribution of mercury and other fun stuff, destruction of landscapes for strip mines... someday people will tally up these costs and probably establish that fossil fuels are a zero-sum game, when you actually value the entire planet.
NASA isn't a leader (anymore), they ride on the coat-tails of industry and the military. There has been trillions of dollars of development in the Uranium infrastructure, replicating that for Thorium would be... less efficient than using the existing systems.
An awful lot has to do with attitudes learned (on both sides) long before the relationship started - these attitudes rarely change much through adulthood, and some of the things the "women want" in a shorter term relationship ultimately destroy a longer term one.
Compostable, or very recyclable. The problem comes with people who don't put them into the recycling stream, and enforcing that with deposits like in the northeast isn't a real solution, I mean, it does get the homeless to clean up the streets for you, but most of the world (especially the oceans) doesn't have a homeless population scavenging for returnable bottles.
One thing that "experts" like doctors and lawyers hate about the age of "free" information is that the common rabble now knows stuff, actual stuff. In the old days you asked a doctor to treat a condition, he tried the best he could and you had to be content with that. When I had a procedure done in 2012 and I wasn't happy with the outcome, I was able to look it up online, find relative success rates and recovery times and find out that: yes, I should have expected nearly full recovery in 2 weeks instead of 3+ months, no, I should not have expected the joint locking and other side effects I suffered due to the long recovery, and, in point of fact, my outcome was worse than more than 99% of patients who had similar procedures done in the last 30 years. A litigious person can then take that data to court and seek damages, but I would consider the lost time and effort of such an endeavor to be "more damaging" to my life than this particular outcome, so I let it go.
Similarly, I went to a lawyer to ask about certain civil rights issues and he more or less blew smoke up any available orifice with stories about how there aren't any lawyers within 200 miles who would even begin to touch a case like that, you have no grounds, etc. etc. essentially, he was representing "the other side" even though I had paid him a consultation fee. I already knew he was full of BS from previous internet research, and within 4 hours I had found a different lawyer, halfway between this clown's office and my home, who did represent us gratis and got the result we were looking for from the school board within a matter of days. In the old days, you would be forced to take the local representatives word for things, or travel great distances to do extensive research and consulting.
Slashdot Mirror
They optimize for cost, and since they're still using UPS and FedEx in many cases, that means the USPS costs are higher than these privately run companies.
I think the article is overstating the case, accounting is a somewhat subjective endeavor, and USPS rates make profit on some runs while taking a loss on others - putting the whole Amazon.com postal load on First Class mail is a gross oversimplification.
Consumers also want rockets, but they need to be affordable and competitive with alternative forms of transport already available.
It's not of negligible significance if the existing infrastructure is vulnerable to this kind of attack on a widespread basis. If all you need is an ordinary car and a small bit of kit to take over a commercial broadcast station, that's a pretty significant weakness.
If the receiver required some kind of crypto-key in a sideband or sub-channel, at least they could automatically shut down broadcast when they've been pwned. It sounds funny, but if a few dozen people got together and took over greater London radio to broadcast some kind of War of the Worlds thing, it could cause as much damage from panic as any bomb.
The computer is an awesome tool, but the lecture hall didn't evolve to work with outside competition for students' attention - not surprising that a shift in the structure of something that has evolved over hundreds of years for a singular purpose has diminished its efficiency at achieving that purpose.
Now, if we want to think about re-imagining the lecture hall with consideration of the computer as an available tool... what's the increase in efficiency of distribution of information for a professor sitting in his office to be able to lecture to 500 students distributed around the globe, with in-lecture support from 50 teaching assistants who can answer questions 1:1 in real-time, as compared to making everyone relocate themselves on a particular campus and live there for years to accomplish a similar purpose? Certainly, there will be loss of many things that living on a university campus provides, but on balance, for the same investment of time and money, which way could deliver better education to the same set of interested people? Which way can offer access to more students of lesser financial status? Which way can reduce the carbon footprint of education, probably by a factor of 100:1?
That number will be up from 71% to over 80% emitted by the top 100.
The number of corporate entities doing the emission is irrelevant, the total emission is what matters. So, if you suddenly killed Exxon/Mobil tomorrow, their emissions would just be transferred over to whatever company picks up their business, almost seamlessly.
What's needed is for the economic framework to reward lower carbon emissions.
Then you have to ask yourself:
"Do my bathroom scale, air quality monitor, and cloud database really need to talk to each other to improve my life?"
Some things just haven't evolved into their final "appliance" form yet, like pets.com when they advertised in the Superbowl, they might be an idea with some merit, but it will take some revision before they can really serve a meaningful number of people in a meaningful way.
I often wonder how accurate the estimates of the gravitational lensing effect are... I mean, I'm sure there are dozens of PhDs based on methods "to be sure within +/- BS" of what they are seeing, but there are enough variables and unknowns in these methods to easily have a "whoops, missed this one" moment, several times.
Your CC# has always been vulnerable at the endpoints, whether or not it gets trawled up with a million others in a hacking scheme is a much smaller risk.
Been paying for stuff online since 1999, frequency of CC number changes is about the same pre and post... occasional bogus charge shows up, call the company, charge is reversed and we get new card numbers... no drama, minor hassle, way better than mailing checks.
Stan Lee lives a different life than most people. I'm sure Joan was and is very important to him, but he's not lacking for any kind of company he wants - in fact, I'm rather sure he has full-time staff to regulate how much social interaction reaches him throughout each day.
If Whole Foods had a bonafide better offer, they would have taken it.
Not too many players out there with $14B+ to spend on a 20% premium over market price.
Whipping the whole thing up in the press would have created a temporary spike in the share price, probably higher than $42 per share, but it would have been short lived, and people with $14B+ to invest know this.
Anecdotally, contractor neighbors of ours moved to the Carolina mountains a couple of years ago. They've got plenty of work up there doing construction, maintenance, etc. - but all their clients, and most people they meet are on disability - not included in U4.
I suppose it makes sense: if you don't need a job, you can move somewhere nice that doesn't have many.
Translation: I've got better ways to improve society than launching litigation against a doctor whose removal from practice might, or might not improve the overall state of healthcare.
Who's factoring in the waste management costs of coal? Fly ash piles, atmospheric distribution of mercury and other fun stuff, destruction of landscapes for strip mines... someday people will tally up these costs and probably establish that fossil fuels are a zero-sum game, when you actually value the entire planet.
You can't do anything significant and public without idiots demonstrating at the gates.
What matters is whether or not the politicians who control the budget can (and choose to) hold office without placating them.
NASA isn't a leader (anymore), they ride on the coat-tails of industry and the military. There has been trillions of dollars of development in the Uranium infrastructure, replicating that for Thorium would be... less efficient than using the existing systems.
RTFA - no GPU, therefore no missing driver.
For $10, I'll take the HDMI port too, thanks. Not that I always use it, but just having it is a big plus.
I do like the smaller form factor, but Raspberry Pi3 is small enough that the accessories around it are usually bigger anyway.
Like registering fuck.com - maybe you get rich, maybe you just get burned - you know you're playing on the edge.
An awful lot has to do with attitudes learned (on both sides) long before the relationship started - these attitudes rarely change much through adulthood, and some of the things the "women want" in a shorter term relationship ultimately destroy a longer term one.
And the drunk homeless guy who attends the meeting for the free air-conditioning, plus 3 minutes of fame at the mic every week.
80% is, however, soooo much better than conversion of petro-chemical energy to heat by conventional brakes.
Compostable, or very recyclable. The problem comes with people who don't put them into the recycling stream, and enforcing that with deposits like in the northeast isn't a real solution, I mean, it does get the homeless to clean up the streets for you, but most of the world (especially the oceans) doesn't have a homeless population scavenging for returnable bottles.
One thing that "experts" like doctors and lawyers hate about the age of "free" information is that the common rabble now knows stuff, actual stuff. In the old days you asked a doctor to treat a condition, he tried the best he could and you had to be content with that. When I had a procedure done in 2012 and I wasn't happy with the outcome, I was able to look it up online, find relative success rates and recovery times and find out that: yes, I should have expected nearly full recovery in 2 weeks instead of 3+ months, no, I should not have expected the joint locking and other side effects I suffered due to the long recovery, and, in point of fact, my outcome was worse than more than 99% of patients who had similar procedures done in the last 30 years. A litigious person can then take that data to court and seek damages, but I would consider the lost time and effort of such an endeavor to be "more damaging" to my life than this particular outcome, so I let it go.
Similarly, I went to a lawyer to ask about certain civil rights issues and he more or less blew smoke up any available orifice with stories about how there aren't any lawyers within 200 miles who would even begin to touch a case like that, you have no grounds, etc. etc. essentially, he was representing "the other side" even though I had paid him a consultation fee. I already knew he was full of BS from previous internet research, and within 4 hours I had found a different lawyer, halfway between this clown's office and my home, who did represent us gratis and got the result we were looking for from the school board within a matter of days. In the old days, you would be forced to take the local representatives word for things, or travel great distances to do extensive research and consulting.
Off.