Some people like to live in houses with better design sense than a 80's-chic man-cave black entertainment center tower with 12 big black ugly devices all blinking lights into the room.
While this seems a little extreme since the odds are very low that someone using this wouldn't have a DVR box (which is a better place for it), the desire to get rid of components is something I completely understand now that I have tried to live in a house that isn't decorated in "college bachelor pad chic".
You know what happens when a town or state takes on a company the size of these telecom companies?
The state loses.
New Hampshire tried to pull crap with Verizon a couple of years ago. They told Verizon to roll out fiber to the whole state or they wouldn't approve it in any of the state. Now mind you 3/4 of New Hampshire is extremely rural and extremely poor. Ie, the highest cost areas to roll out fiber are the areas most likely to not order service with it anyway.
What did Verizon do? It said "fuck you" in no uncertain terms to New Hampshire and sold the business to Fairpoint.
Result? No fiber for rural New Hampshire. No new fiber for any of the planned areas of New Hampshire that was planned but not rolled out and no TV-over-fiber service (we had been targeted for FiosTV early on).
New Hampshire tried to play hard ball and the state lost.
Every state and town has different rules about how it all needs to be set up.
In some places, like Massachusetts, you can't do any of the install yourself. You have to have a licensed electrician do it.
As a tip, get a generator that uses an inverter. They run quieter and are less likely to damage electronics if you run out of fuel with them.
You also, pretty much everywhere, have to have a proper transfer switch to disconnect the grid power any time there is any electricity being sent into your house by the generator -- otherwise you will energize the power lines around your house and could kill a line worker.
But generally, you really need to talk to someone who knows the answer locally for you.
Thanks, that was the single most horrid vision I've ever had on Slashdot.
And I was around during the goatse phase ten years ago.
And there proves the people selling them are dumb
on
Trick or Treatment
·
· Score: 1
If I had the technology to remove every single atom of any given element from any substantial amount of pretty much any other material at all, I'd be richer than Bill Gates.
Wang is probably the best example I can think of in the tech space.
But that is fairly common, in reality. Lots of companies succeed and fail by the presence of their founder or leader, although typically not companies the size of Apple and Wang. Polaroid is another perfect example, though. Land's leaving and eventual death was the end of Polaroid as a dominant, significant company.
Wrong, the center of gravity must be in geo-synchronous orbit. You need to either extend it just as far beyond there or hang a weight off it to balance it.
Another little fact people seem to miss with space elevators -- geosync is the first place you can "step off" it without falling because by definition you are not moving fast enough anywhere before then to stay in orbit.
A few percent increase in treatable melanomas is how its typically estimated.
Remember, the ozone layer blocks a lot of radiation, too. The exposure with a weakened or missing magnetic field is no worse than being up at polar latitudes. At ground level its not particularly hazardous because the ozone protects you. At 40,000 ft flying over the poles, its not quite so safe.
The health risk of the interstitial time during a pole reversal is very low. In the 1st world where we have good medical care, its really non-existent.
No, and in fact the results of it are pretty well known:
1) The reversal isn't a problem 2) The period of time in between when there is no magnetic field, or multiple poles with a weak field mean: a slight increase in risk of cancer, although calculated to be very low, and a high increase in the number of aurora.
I've never seen anything in literature suggesting any real risk other than slight cancer increases.
Its actually important research where cognitive science is involved -- the precise mechanism that translates from a set of impulses entering the brain to the sense of self and awareness of both position and body isn't well understood.
We know, sure, that the world we live in is a mental projection that our brains assemble from a lot of, frankly, very coarse and non-specific input. We mentally fill in a lot of details. Figuring out how much you have to simulate to cause perception to switch is important, as it gives clues as to what the actual triggers are that lead to a sense of self.
You must have fast food places paying a LOT of money. There can easily be *thousands* of dollars in copper in a small house at prices it was at over the summer.
And it doesn't take long to remove it if you don't need to be neat about it.
2001 was not a movie made from a long sci-fi novel. It was a movie written to be a movie, written in a distinct style. It worked not because the audience "got" it back then (because the "audience" -- meaning general public has NEVER "gotten" Kubrick), rather it worked because it was written to work and was made by a brilliant director.
No director can take a 200 page book and turn it into a two hour movie, much less a 500 or 1000 page book... because you *have* to strip out 99% of it, unless the book is largely fluff or was written to be a movie (Harry Potter, as an example)
Case in point: the *abridged* Audible version of Foundation comes in at nearly *seven* hours.
No its very simple -- anything longer than a very short story is too long for a movie.
Philip Dick stories work because the originals are short, with fairly simple plots. Novels or groups of novels don't because you need to condense 500+ pages of writing down to a 50 page script.
Need to? Hell no, not in a world overpopulated by a factor of 2-5.
I don't have to ask anyone to judge their value in that context. At its coldest, its not hard to judge absolute value -- what is the benefit a birth will bring to society versus its cost.
If you want to talk relative vs absolute, there's a pretty significant percentage of people who end up in the red on that count.
If society has a certain amount of resources available to support the raising of the next generation, and the birth of the child in question will use the resources that otherwise could've been used for ten children without fundamental genetic defects, that's a pretty absolute value judgment as well.
The GP is absolutely right -- we as a society (particularly in the US) fail miserably at making rational judgment calls because of a misguided and unjustified assignment of irrational amounts of value to a bunch of cells.
Slashdot Mirror
As a general rule, anything you produce while you are in college is owned by the school.
They're not taking it from you -- its theirs to begin with.
Thats why grad students have to license back any IP developed as part of their graduate work if they leave a school and start a company.
How do you think these big research schools *have* such large endowments?
Some people like to live in houses with better design sense than a 80's-chic man-cave black entertainment center tower with 12 big black ugly devices all blinking lights into the room.
While this seems a little extreme since the odds are very low that someone using this wouldn't have a DVR box (which is a better place for it), the desire to get rid of components is something I completely understand now that I have tried to live in a house that isn't decorated in "college bachelor pad chic".
The starving people back then didn't have guns.
And nuclear weapons.
I'd say, no, most of the advancements when we're talking extinction-level events, are going to hurt not help.
Sorry, you're quite incorrect.
Copyright doesn't matter -- their contract with the companies that distribute their music does.
You know what happens when a town or state takes on a company the size of these telecom companies?
The state loses.
New Hampshire tried to pull crap with Verizon a couple of years ago. They told Verizon to roll out fiber to the whole state or they wouldn't approve it in any of the state. Now mind you 3/4 of New Hampshire is extremely rural and extremely poor. Ie, the highest cost areas to roll out fiber are the areas most likely to not order service with it anyway.
What did Verizon do? It said "fuck you" in no uncertain terms to New Hampshire and sold the business to Fairpoint.
Result? No fiber for rural New Hampshire. No new fiber for any of the planned areas of New Hampshire that was planned but not rolled out and no TV-over-fiber service (we had been targeted for FiosTV early on).
New Hampshire tried to play hard ball and the state lost.
Every state and town has different rules about how it all needs to be set up.
In some places, like Massachusetts, you can't do any of the install yourself. You have to have a licensed electrician do it.
As a tip, get a generator that uses an inverter. They run quieter and are less likely to damage electronics if you run out of fuel with them.
You also, pretty much everywhere, have to have a proper transfer switch to disconnect the grid power any time there is any electricity being sent into your house by the generator -- otherwise you will energize the power lines around your house and could kill a line worker.
But generally, you really need to talk to someone who knows the answer locally for you.
Thanks, that was the single most horrid vision I've ever had on Slashdot.
And I was around during the goatse phase ten years ago.
If I had the technology to remove every single atom of any given element from any substantial amount of pretty much any other material at all, I'd be richer than Bill Gates.
Wang is probably the best example I can think of in the tech space.
But that is fairly common, in reality. Lots of companies succeed and fail by the presence of their founder or leader, although typically not companies the size of Apple and Wang. Polaroid is another perfect example, though. Land's leaving and eventual death was the end of Polaroid as a dominant, significant company.
Even more than this joke.
You could argue it... right until you went up 100 miles and let go.
When you hit the ground, it might sink in that you weren't in any sort of orbit.
Wrong, the center of gravity must be in geo-synchronous orbit. You need to either extend it just as far beyond there or hang a weight off it to balance it.
Another little fact people seem to miss with space elevators -- geosync is the first place you can "step off" it without falling because by definition you are not moving fast enough anywhere before then to stay in orbit.
A few percent increase in treatable melanomas is how its typically estimated.
Remember, the ozone layer blocks a lot of radiation, too. The exposure with a weakened or missing magnetic field is no worse than being up at polar latitudes. At ground level its not particularly hazardous because the ozone protects you. At 40,000 ft flying over the poles, its not quite so safe.
The health risk of the interstitial time during a pole reversal is very low. In the 1st world where we have good medical care, its really non-existent.
Its okay, terrorists never smile ...
No, and in fact the results of it are pretty well known:
1) The reversal isn't a problem
2) The period of time in between when there is no magnetic field, or multiple poles with a weak field mean: a slight increase in risk of cancer, although calculated to be very low, and a high increase in the number of aurora.
I've never seen anything in literature suggesting any real risk other than slight cancer increases.
Its happened many times in human (pre)history.
No, but PEX is even more common in commercial construction.
Its actually important research where cognitive science is involved -- the precise mechanism that translates from a set of impulses entering the brain to the sense of self and awareness of both position and body isn't well understood.
We know, sure, that the world we live in is a mental projection that our brains assemble from a lot of, frankly, very coarse and non-specific input. We mentally fill in a lot of details. Figuring out how much you have to simulate to cause perception to switch is important, as it gives clues as to what the actual triggers are that lead to a sense of self.
You forgot, also, that the odds are as a buyer you're still going to have your money stolen if you buy from there ...
You must have fast food places paying a LOT of money. There can easily be *thousands* of dollars in copper in a small house at prices it was at over the summer.
And it doesn't take long to remove it if you don't need to be neat about it.
Copper isn't in demand from the construction boom -- most new houses use PEX, not copper, and even if it was copper, it wouldn't be a blip in demand.
I don't think thats even remotely the case.
2001 was not a movie made from a long sci-fi novel. It was a movie written to be a movie, written in a distinct style. It worked not because the audience "got" it back then (because the "audience" -- meaning general public has NEVER "gotten" Kubrick), rather it worked because it was written to work and was made by a brilliant director.
No director can take a 200 page book and turn it into a two hour movie, much less a 500 or 1000 page book... because you *have* to strip out 99% of it, unless the book is largely fluff or was written to be a movie (Harry Potter, as an example)
Case in point: the *abridged* Audible version of Foundation comes in at nearly *seven* hours.
And thats the abridged version!
No its very simple -- anything longer than a very short story is too long for a movie.
Philip Dick stories work because the originals are short, with fairly simple plots. Novels or groups of novels don't because you need to condense 500+ pages of writing down to a 50 page script.
Can? Sure.
Need to? Hell no, not in a world overpopulated by a factor of 2-5.
I don't have to ask anyone to judge their value in that context. At its coldest, its not hard to judge absolute value -- what is the benefit a birth will bring to society versus its cost.
If you want to talk relative vs absolute, there's a pretty significant percentage of people who end up in the red on that count.
If society has a certain amount of resources available to support the raising of the next generation, and the birth of the child in question will use the resources that otherwise could've been used for ten children without fundamental genetic defects, that's a pretty absolute value judgment as well.
The GP is absolutely right -- we as a society (particularly in the US) fail miserably at making rational judgment calls because of a misguided and unjustified assignment of irrational amounts of value to a bunch of cells.
Wish I had mod points. You deserve some for being absolutely right while likely getting flamed into oblivion for it.
No one who has lived with the train wreck a HoA or condo association tends to cause would ever find this a good idea.