It's the same fallacy all over again. Just because something is bad (in this case global warming) and even assuming there is nothing we can do to avoid it doesn't mean we should make it even worse by not making any effort to limit the damage. Global warming is not binary. There can be little warming, a big one, or anything in between.
Yes we must adapt, but we should also reduce our emissions. If we can't limit the raise to 2 C then let's try to keep it under 2.5 C or 3 C.
Being fallacious is not being realist. It's just being stupid.
The fallacy is that we have any control over it at all.
It's like when you have a company that's losing a million dollars a day. You could attempt to save some money cut some salaries and somehow reduce your burn rate and hope for some good fortune that could turn your situation around, but at some point you have to plan for a post-bankruptcy existence. I'm afraid that we have gotten to the point that we should be planning for that post bankruptcy existence, when you are hoping if everyone takes a 10% paycut that somehow it will work out.
I've been in that company before. Right now we only have projected improved technology and deployment to achieve 21-40% of the required emission reductions of the Paris accords without direct cuts, the rest will undoubtedly have to come from direct cuts (60% or more). If you actually believe the doomsday scenario of 3 deg C, that is the moral equivalent to BK. If the management in your companies comes to you with a plan where you they have a way to save 40% of the money they need by better efficiency but all employees have to take a 60% voluntary paycut just to show your support for their plan, (and you discover that 40% savings plan is really 21-40% to avoid bankruptcy and there's no way politically to get to 40%), then unless you believe that BK thing (aka 3deg C) is a bluff to get you to cower in fear, you should be telling your co-workers to save their money to plan for that post-bankruptcy existence. Sorry, the writing is on the wall my friend.
"IMHO we should stop wasting time/money trying to stop it because that is simply a quixotic goal. We should simply spend our time/money to adapt. If you want to call me a denier, fine."
That's kind of like saying the solution to alcoholism is to spend money on wine instead of beer.
No it's like saying since we can't stop people from being alcoholics if alcohol is available we spend our time and money on adapting to the existence of potential alcoholics in our society instead of attempting to spend time banning all alcohol sales and reinstate prohibition (feel free to replace "alcohol" with "petrol", "drugs", "soda", whatever)...
You won't get much reaction on slashdot, it's a climate change denial echo chamber.
Oh I don't deny there is climate change. Is it AGW? I don't know, and I don't care. I'm a realist. Either way if the stats are true, it is politically impossible to do anything about it (short of a war and/or massive decimation of either population or economy which I don't favor).
IMHO we should stop wasting time/money trying to stop it because that is simply a quixotic goal. We should simply spend our time/money to adapt. If you want to call me a denier, fine. Even if we caused it (and I'm agnostic on the "A" part of it), it doesn't really matter and we shouldn't argue about it. Go sue me.
I think the trouble with Geoblocking drones (and I'm not saying that it shouldn't be done, but pointing this out), is that if we Geoblock for prisons for reasons of security, then we do the same for government buildings, military bases; again, all for likely good security reasons. Then we add banks or other money storage facilities and clearing houses or places likely the target of prying eyes. Then we add primary schools, for the safety of the children. Then how about the universities, because they do sensitive research for the military..and so on and so forth. The question about Geoblocking is: Where do we draw the line?
Can I Geoblock my business or property because I do business with the government?
How far beyond my property line can I Geoblock? Just because you can't fly the drone directly over a prison, doesn't mean I can't fly high enough to get a good look into it.
I don't think they care about *looking* into a prison from a mile away, only getting above it and dropping contraband into the prison (cell phones, drugs, etc)... Looking in general? That's a privacy issue not a geoblocking issue. There are many laws regarding privacy and they are different around the world. That has less to do with geoblocking as it does with the camera issue.
At least in the US, privacy is generally afforded if it is out of view of the naked eye in a place accessible to the public. Courts have decided that when you put a high-powered zoom lens on a camera or if you use enhancments (like IR cameras) you have already violated the "naked eye" understanding of privacy even if you are taking the picture from a place accessible to the public. In Europe, I think privacy laws are generally more strict than in the US.
Firstly there are several different satellite geolocation systems in use that cover the entire world, US has GPS, EU has Gallileo, and USSR has GLONASS. Many receivers can pick them all up, so you'd need them all to agree to not cover UK prisons. Good luck convincing the Russians, and I'd bet you'd have a hard time even with the controlling authorities of the other two.
Secondly, why would drones necessarily need GPS anyway? Just fly them with a camera.
Firstly, it doesn't matter what GNSS system you use. The Geo-fencing works by *coordinates* built into the nav-system inside the drone not broadcast from the GNSS system so it doesn't require any cooperation from GNSS providers, only drone manufacturers.
Secondly, have you ever flown a commercial drone? The larger ones generally support a "go-home" feature which uses GPS (newer ones support Galileo) which is useful to keep from losing your expensive drone when it loses touch with your controller. Only the smaller throw-away drones are camera-only... That being said some drones that have GPS sometime loose GPS lock more frequently than you would like (electronics reliability sometimes isn't that great).
I suspect the rationale is simply to make the hurdle sufficiently high so that they don't have to deal with too many "accidental" fly-overs which allows them to treat all airspace violators as criminals. It's much easier to gain political support to crack down hard on something if you don't have 100's of innocent violators. Of course you could always turn Geofencing off, but then prosecutors can use that fact against you if you then violate airspace.
Think about Geofencing like a condom. Use it if you don't want to get in trouble...
You do know that Logan's Run wasn't an athletic event, right?
One the other hand, you can get Olympic medal in Equestrian Dressage... At least I think the sandmen from Logan's Run practice a fictitious martial arts called Omnite and don't rely on their horse...
This is kindof what you get when you don't have a constitution... I've known many Brits who where so proud that they were able to operate w/o a written constitution by simply being *reasonable*. Unfortunately, when the shit hits the fan (like Brexit), sometimes it's better to have a document to rally around rather than unreasonable politicians trying to misapply old precedence for something that has no precedent.
Maybe this will renew the call to formalize a constitution for the Brits? The downside is that that would be a perfect opportunity leverage what Scotland secessionist were attempting to do (e.g., have a written constitution). Therefore it won't happen and the Brits will muddle along their current course...
I have a feeling the Queen is gonna have to step in on this one... That's why you kept her around right?
I'd think that Japan would be ahead of China as well - I believe that Fujitsu, Hitachi, Mitsubishi et al are still in the semiconductor business
The only significant output from Japan is Toshiba (NAND flash), Sony (image sensors), and Micron (DRAM). The companies you named there only account for less than 1% of world wide chip sales. Interestingly, Japan's $ share is much larger than their volume share.
The US and close allies control more or less the entire semiconductor business. There's no worry of say, China or Russia, competing anywhere in the foreseeable future.
Actually China is a major player in the semiconductor business. Because they are a major consumer of integrated circuits (slightly less than 50%) many of the large fab companies have factories there (e.g., TSMC, TI, Samsung). They have a significant number of fabless business (e.g., HiSilicon, Spreadtrum, ZTE, Rockchip, etc), and they even have local pure-play fab companies as well (e.g., SMIC, XMC).
On the fabless side, China's share (8%) is about double that of Japan and Europe combined. The US of course has the lion share of the fabless semiconductor suppliers at about 65%.
On the foundry side, SMIC was founded back in 2000 by a veterans of TSMC and TI (and was found guilty of misappropriating TSMC tradesecrets which settled for $200M and 10% stake in the company). Of course even with all of that SMIC isn't on par with TSMC technology-wise, but you don't have to be at the bleeding edge to play a big role. UMC (the original taiwanese foundry) is also not on par with TSMC, but still a top 5 player. Right now, SMIC has about 1/2 the market share of UMC and Global Foundaries (TSMC of course has the lion share of the market at about 60%).
China has already surpassed every country but the US and Korea in semicondutors in both the fabless and foundry business. They may not be able to be able to dominate the business, but to say they aren't "competing anywhere in the foreseeable future" is the complacent attitude that allowed Toyota and the other Japanese auto companies to become major players in the 80's. Being large consumers of IC tech, they are highly motivated to become self sufficient in this area.
That was the whole point of paying for TV. No ads! And, boy, was it worth it. Now you've got the worst of both worlds, you pay out of pocket AND they crush you with commercials.
Frankly, the reason TV is being taken over by Netflix et al. has everything to do with getting rid of ads.
Hardly. Cable (aka CATV or community antenna television) started when people couldn't get good reception at their homes with Yagi (technically Yagi-Uda). Because the market for original CATV was limited to folks that couldn't receive over the air and due to lots of regulations which prevented most out-of-area transmission (aka superstations), the CATV concept was pretty much saturated until non-broadcast providers came on board (like HBO which charged a premium but also drove basic cable subscriptions). Cable never meant no-advert TV. Your subscription paid for the cable infrastructure. The premium channels always cost more (even if you pirated them, you had to pay for your pirating equipment).
FWIW the advert model works great with a unfragmented audience (most people watch the same channels), but unfortunately as the programming becomes more fragmented, the infrastructure to broadcast all possible channels to your house and you pick the one you want to watch becomes less efficient and the revenue from untargetted adverts (e.g., the historical network broadcast and cable model) becomes less tenable and the extra subscription uni-cast on-demand model becomes relatively more cost effective. This is the real dynamic you are seeing today. As bandwidth becomes cheaper and cheaper, eventually is more efficient to just bill you instead of billing the advertisers and everything will become unbundled.
The downsides of this eventuality are that that high-bandwidth cable that serves most of America is likely to be come quite expensive as the cable companies collapse. In America, if you can't get high-speed internet today, you are likely doomed by this coming reality as the capital incentives to lay new commodity connections (w/o any premium service) is going to be pretty minimal (as Google Fiber has no doubt discovered and retreated from playing this game).
It's not a problem. I don't want to be a salesman, or be in any department that deals with salesmen. And I certainly don't want to be romantic with one. Yeuck!
whoosh... I see you haven't gotten the concept of selling yourself yet...
2 Wifi cards allows you to connect to separate networks or turn one into an access point. (For those hotels that only allow 1 device on their network at a time.)
Or maybe you could simply enable SoftAP (aka Virtual Wifi) on your laptop?
Ling Ling* was forced into the international sex trade. It killed him.
Won't someone please think of the pandas!!!
* Despite being a male panda, Ling Ling's name meant "darling little girl" in Chinese.
Not that this matters, but the Ling-Ling that most folks had heard about in the USA was the *female* partner of Hsing-Hsing who were gifts from China in 1972 to the US National Zoo in Washington DC as a "reward" for Nixon's visit to China.
Another panda also named Ling-Ling given to Japan by China was male and is apparently the first hit if you google it. Just like there are many killer whales given the name Shamu by SeaWorld, Ling-Ling is apparently a popular name given to Pandas by China...
Eastern Airlines? What a perfect metaphor for the Trump campaign: a relic of the 1980s, known primarily for going bankrupt.
Bernie Sanders was the first presidential candidate to charter a flight on Eastern (from DesMoines IA to Manchester NH during the primary).
At the time, some felt it was appropriate metaphor for someone like Bernie (who usually flies coach on scheduled airlines), to charter a flight from an airline that made its inaugural flight from Miami to socialist/communist Havana and back...
It says even in the summary that it isn't "Mike Pence's Plane" - it appears to be Eastern Airlines plane....
I was about to ask, "What? Eastern went out of business long ago.". Didn't know someone had bought up the branding and started a new airline with it to confuse people.
Bit of trivia, the original Eastern Airlines sold their east coast shuttle service to some NY real-estate developer who renamed it after himself...
A lot of people think if they stand to make $1 on a $1 zillion project they should do it, but the real world doesn't work that way.
$1 profit is *way* more than some startup businesses plan for (many have no plan at all for profit, only market share), and yet they often still do it and sometimes raise billions of dollars in the process...
Let's take Twitter as an example. They currently have about -$2B in retained earnings (mostly convertible debt). There is no current business plan to pay this back and their most recent strategy was to attempt to sell the business and eat the debt (and their most recent suitor Salesforce has walked away). Yet Twitter is a real world company "zillion" dollar project...
The problem with Google Fiber was they didn't have enough dumb investors to soak (they only had Alphabet)...
Actually, my question is, what do any of these three nations have to gain by invading any of one another? We all have the same stuff, which is to say that we all have land, water, oil, and mineral resources. Even in that case, where they have a shared border so it's relatively convenient, what is there to gain? Certainly nothing that couldn't be had cheaper at home.
You are forgetting the geo-political angle. One countries loss in influence is another countries gain. It isn't about the land, water, old and mineral resources you have in your own backyard, it's having control next to your backyard. Japan started by annexing Manchuria as it's start to dominance over Asia. Italy took over Somalia, Eritria, and Abyssinia, Germany simply took over territory like Austria and Czechoslovakia. War really didn't start until Germany invaded Poland.
This is why this whole Ukraine/Crimea and South-China Sea events are so disturbing, one hopes that this isn't some sort canary in the coal-mine...
It's not a race but it is used by racists as a proxy for race, since most muslims aren't white.
Most Christians aren't white either...
Although the US and Europe have less than 50% of the Christian population, only about 70% are white... In other geographies that make up the rest of 2B Christians, the dominate areas are Central/South America, Sub-saharan Africa, the Asia Pacific which only have a small fraction of whites. There are about as many Christans in Sub-Saharan Africa as all of Europe combined...
Of course you can't explain statistics like this to racists...
... then they must surely know what direction it lies in, from the sun. Working backwards from there, they should be able to narrow the area to search sufficiently that they ought to at least figure out exactly where they need to be looking to find this object.
The researchers did not infer the existence of this new planet from looking at the sun tilt, the tilt was reasoned to be potentially explainable by a theorized planet that we haven't discovered yet.
The planet in question was inferred by looking at the statistical orbital distribution of Kuiper Belt Objects. They have a general idea of it's orbital inclination for this mysterious new planet they only have a general range of mass (~10x earth) and orbital distance (~20x Neptune's orbit). That makes a pretty big chunk of space to search for a relatively small object that is not luminous among very slowly moving objects (~15K year orbit).
The original analysis that suggested this new planet is currently only statistical using orbital dynamics, not some specific N-body problem they are solving. They are only attempting to estimate the potential orbital objects that could cause of perturbation of the Sedna-like objects and KBOs relative to long term evolution of orbits. AFAIK, to do their analysis they replaced the orbit of the planet with equivalent massive "wires" that traced currently know orbits because the planets orbit in a timescale much shorter than the proposed planet (and thus exchange angular momentum between themselves and a distant perturb-er which they are analyzing at different timescale). Statistic analysis also showed it likely to have a perihelion opposite to the aggregate distribution of the KBOs. This means they only have a few orbital parameters for this object relative to long-term orbital evolution, not a realistic way of determining where along this 10K-20K year orbit it actually is today.
Anything that another person can see, or hear, or record, simply is not private. We have established a few exceptions such as talking to one's doctor, or minister. But what we have going on is a situation in which people are demanding the right to lie, to be secretive, to do wrong, or to be able to deny their own behavior. Frankly if you sun bathe, nude in your back yard an airplane can snap a photo easily these days. there is simply no real difference between a plane at 2,000 feet and a drone at 100 feet. There is a reason that Trump could molest or that Cosby could drug and rape people. Imagine if voice recordings and hidden cams were totally legal in all situations. How much fraud on a used car lot could be prevented? And we don't even want to think about the number of cheating wives and husbands would be caught and exposed.
If the TRUTH shall set us free we must do everything humanly possible to allow total scrutiny of every individual so that truth permeates every aspect of our lives . Imagine every word in a business being live and available for anyone in the world to watch and preserve. Maybe your talcum powder that just killed you would not have contained asbestos. And how low would your taxes be if all economics were wide open for all to inspect?
The real issue is not about drones. It is about whether we like a world filled with lies and crimes or a world in which truth permeates every bit of everyone's lives.
Let's see... If "the truth" would permeate all interactions, I suspect that authoritarian regimes would rule the world as they would be able to quash all opposition before they could get organized... I suspect that people trying to leave dominating relationships (assuming the actually abusive ones are caught by authorities), would have their efforts thwarted by their partners. The only reason you want to hide is from the person who has the power which could be the government but it could easily be your mother, father, or spouse...
Not so sure I want to live in that zero privacy world. But if you want to be a Borg, you are welcome to it...
See my previous post... Actually, Nasa originally offered them a *sky-crane* (not a balloon landing), but congress decided we couldn't afford to participate in this mission...
Slashdot Mirror
It's the same fallacy all over again.
Just because something is bad (in this case global warming) and even assuming there is nothing we can do to avoid it doesn't mean we should make it even worse by not making any effort to limit the damage. Global warming is not binary. There can be little warming, a big one, or anything in between.
Yes we must adapt, but we should also reduce our emissions. If we can't limit the raise to 2 C then let's try to keep it under 2.5 C or 3 C.
Being fallacious is not being realist. It's just being stupid.
The fallacy is that we have any control over it at all.
It's like when you have a company that's losing a million dollars a day. You could attempt to save some money cut some salaries and somehow reduce your burn rate and hope for some good fortune that could turn your situation around, but at some point you have to plan for a post-bankruptcy existence. I'm afraid that we have gotten to the point that we should be planning for that post bankruptcy existence, when you are hoping if everyone takes a 10% paycut that somehow it will work out.
I've been in that company before. Right now we only have projected improved technology and deployment to achieve 21-40% of the required emission reductions of the Paris accords without direct cuts, the rest will undoubtedly have to come from direct cuts (60% or more). If you actually believe the doomsday scenario of 3 deg C, that is the moral equivalent to BK. If the management in your companies comes to you with a plan where you they have a way to save 40% of the money they need by better efficiency but all employees have to take a 60% voluntary paycut just to show your support for their plan, (and you discover that 40% savings plan is really 21-40% to avoid bankruptcy and there's no way politically to get to 40%), then unless you believe that BK thing (aka 3deg C) is a bluff to get you to cower in fear, you should be telling your co-workers to save their money to plan for that post-bankruptcy existence. Sorry, the writing is on the wall my friend.
"IMHO we should stop wasting time/money trying to stop it because that is simply a quixotic goal. We should simply spend our time/money to adapt. If you want to call me a denier, fine."
That's kind of like saying the solution to alcoholism is to spend money on wine instead of beer.
No it's like saying since we can't stop people from being alcoholics if alcohol is available we spend our time and money on adapting to the existence of potential alcoholics in our society instead of attempting to spend time banning all alcohol sales and reinstate prohibition (feel free to replace "alcohol" with "petrol", "drugs", "soda", whatever)...
You won't get much reaction on slashdot, it's a climate change denial echo chamber.
Oh I don't deny there is climate change. Is it AGW? I don't know, and I don't care. I'm a realist. Either way if the stats are true, it is politically impossible to do anything about it (short of a war and/or massive decimation of either population or economy which I don't favor).
IMHO we should stop wasting time/money trying to stop it because that is simply a quixotic goal. We should simply spend our time/money to adapt. If you want to call me a denier, fine. Even if we caused it (and I'm agnostic on the "A" part of it), it doesn't really matter and we shouldn't argue about it. Go sue me.
I think the trouble with Geoblocking drones (and I'm not saying that it shouldn't be done, but pointing this out), is that if we Geoblock for prisons for reasons of security, then we do the same for government buildings, military bases; again, all for likely good security reasons. Then we add banks or other money storage facilities and clearing houses or places likely the target of prying eyes. Then we add primary schools, for the safety of the children. Then how about the universities, because they do sensitive research for the military..and so on and so forth. The question about Geoblocking is: Where do we draw the line?
Can I Geoblock my business or property because I do business with the government?
How far beyond my property line can I Geoblock? Just because you can't fly the drone directly over a prison, doesn't mean I can't fly high enough to get a good look into it.
I don't think they care about *looking* into a prison from a mile away, only getting above it and dropping contraband into the prison (cell phones, drugs, etc)... Looking in general? That's a privacy issue not a geoblocking issue. There are many laws regarding privacy and they are different around the world. That has less to do with geoblocking as it does with the camera issue.
At least in the US, privacy is generally afforded if it is out of view of the naked eye in a place accessible to the public. Courts have decided that when you put a high-powered zoom lens on a camera or if you use enhancments (like IR cameras) you have already violated the "naked eye" understanding of privacy even if you are taking the picture from a place accessible to the public. In Europe, I think privacy laws are generally more strict than in the US.
Firstly there are several different satellite geolocation systems in use that cover the entire world, US has GPS, EU has Gallileo, and USSR has GLONASS. Many receivers can pick them all up, so you'd need them all to agree to not cover UK prisons. Good luck convincing the Russians, and I'd bet you'd have a hard time even with the controlling authorities of the other two.
Secondly, why would drones necessarily need GPS anyway? Just fly them with a camera.
Firstly, it doesn't matter what GNSS system you use. The Geo-fencing works by *coordinates* built into the nav-system inside the drone not broadcast from the GNSS system so it doesn't require any cooperation from GNSS providers, only drone manufacturers.
Secondly, have you ever flown a commercial drone? The larger ones generally support a "go-home" feature which uses GPS (newer ones support Galileo) which is useful to keep from losing your expensive drone when it loses touch with your controller. Only the smaller throw-away drones are camera-only... That being said some drones that have GPS sometime loose GPS lock more frequently than you would like (electronics reliability sometimes isn't that great).
I suspect the rationale is simply to make the hurdle sufficiently high so that they don't have to deal with too many "accidental" fly-overs which allows them to treat all airspace violators as criminals. It's much easier to gain political support to crack down hard on something if you don't have 100's of innocent violators. Of course you could always turn Geofencing off, but then prosecutors can use that fact against you if you then violate airspace.
Think about Geofencing like a condom. Use it if you don't want to get in trouble...
You do know that Logan's Run wasn't an athletic event, right?
One the other hand, you can get Olympic medal in Equestrian Dressage...
At least I think the sandmen from Logan's Run practice a fictitious martial arts called Omnite and don't rely on their horse...
This is kindof what you get when you don't have a constitution... I've known many Brits who where so proud that they were able to operate w/o a written constitution by simply being *reasonable*. Unfortunately, when the shit hits the fan (like Brexit), sometimes it's better to have a document to rally around rather than unreasonable politicians trying to misapply old precedence for something that has no precedent.
Maybe this will renew the call to formalize a constitution for the Brits? The downside is that that would be a perfect opportunity leverage what Scotland secessionist were attempting to do (e.g., have a written constitution). Therefore it won't happen and the Brits will muddle along their current course...
I have a feeling the Queen is gonna have to step in on this one... That's why you kept her around right?
At least I won't get broadcom and brocade confused anymore ;^)
I'd think that Japan would be ahead of China as well - I believe that Fujitsu, Hitachi, Mitsubishi et al are still in the semiconductor business
The only significant output from Japan is Toshiba (NAND flash), Sony (image sensors), and Micron (DRAM).
The companies you named there only account for less than 1% of world wide chip sales. Interestingly, Japan's $ share is much larger than their volume share.
Sorry, messed this sentence up...
China has already surpassed every country but the US, Taiwan, and Korea in semicondutors in both the fabless and foundry business
The US and close allies control more or less the entire semiconductor business. There's no worry of say, China or Russia, competing anywhere in the foreseeable future.
Actually China is a major player in the semiconductor business. Because they are a major consumer of integrated circuits (slightly less than 50%) many of the large fab companies have factories there (e.g., TSMC, TI, Samsung). They have a significant number of fabless business (e.g., HiSilicon, Spreadtrum, ZTE, Rockchip, etc), and they even have local pure-play fab companies as well (e.g., SMIC, XMC).
On the fabless side, China's share (8%) is about double that of Japan and Europe combined. The US of course has the lion share of the fabless semiconductor suppliers at about 65%.
On the foundry side, SMIC was founded back in 2000 by a veterans of TSMC and TI (and was found guilty of misappropriating TSMC tradesecrets which settled for $200M and 10% stake in the company). Of course even with all of that SMIC isn't on par with TSMC technology-wise, but you don't have to be at the bleeding edge to play a big role. UMC (the original taiwanese foundry) is also not on par with TSMC, but still a top 5 player. Right now, SMIC has about 1/2 the market share of UMC and Global Foundaries (TSMC of course has the lion share of the market at about 60%).
China has already surpassed every country but the US and Korea in semicondutors in both the fabless and foundry business. They may not be able to be able to dominate the business, but to say they aren't "competing anywhere in the foreseeable future" is the complacent attitude that allowed Toyota and the other Japanese auto companies to become major players in the 80's. Being large consumers of IC tech, they are highly motivated to become self sufficient in this area.
That was the whole point of paying for TV. No ads! And, boy, was it worth it. Now you've got the worst of both worlds, you pay out of pocket AND they crush you with commercials.
Frankly, the reason TV is being taken over by Netflix et al. has everything to do with getting rid of ads.
Hardly. Cable (aka CATV or community antenna television) started when people couldn't get good reception at their homes with Yagi (technically Yagi-Uda).
Because the market for original CATV was limited to folks that couldn't receive over the air and due to lots of regulations which prevented most out-of-area transmission (aka superstations), the CATV concept was pretty much saturated until non-broadcast providers came on board (like HBO which charged a premium but also drove basic cable subscriptions). Cable never meant no-advert TV. Your subscription paid for the cable infrastructure. The premium channels always cost more (even if you pirated them, you had to pay for your pirating equipment).
FWIW the advert model works great with a unfragmented audience (most people watch the same channels), but unfortunately as the programming becomes more fragmented, the infrastructure to broadcast all possible channels to your house and you pick the one you want to watch becomes less efficient and the revenue from untargetted adverts (e.g., the historical network broadcast and cable model) becomes less tenable and the extra subscription uni-cast on-demand model becomes relatively more cost effective. This is the real dynamic you are seeing today. As bandwidth becomes cheaper and cheaper, eventually is more efficient to just bill you instead of billing the advertisers and everything will become unbundled.
The downsides of this eventuality are that that high-bandwidth cable that serves most of America is likely to be come quite expensive as the cable companies collapse. In America, if you can't get high-speed internet today, you are likely doomed by this coming reality as the capital incentives to lay new commodity connections (w/o any premium service) is going to be pretty minimal (as Google Fiber has no doubt discovered and retreated from playing this game).
It's not a problem. I don't want to be a salesman, or be in any department that deals with salesmen. And I certainly don't want to be romantic with one. Yeuck!
whoosh... I see you haven't gotten the concept of selling yourself yet...
2 Wifi cards allows you to connect to separate networks or turn one into an access point. (For those hotels that only allow 1 device on their network at a time.)
Or maybe you could simply enable SoftAP (aka Virtual Wifi) on your laptop?
The problem with that idea is that salesmen are scum.
With that attitude don't try to sell yourself as a potential employee to a new company or as a potential romantic partner.
Ling Ling* was forced into the international sex trade. It killed him.
Won't someone please think of the pandas!!!
* Despite being a male panda, Ling Ling's name meant "darling little girl" in Chinese.
Not that this matters, but the Ling-Ling that most folks had heard about in the USA was the *female* partner of Hsing-Hsing who were gifts from China in 1972 to the US National Zoo in Washington DC as a "reward" for Nixon's visit to China.
Another panda also named Ling-Ling given to Japan by China was male and is apparently the first hit if you google it. Just like there are many killer whales given the name Shamu by SeaWorld, Ling-Ling is apparently a popular name given to Pandas by China...
Eastern Airlines? What a perfect metaphor for the Trump campaign: a relic of the 1980s, known primarily for going bankrupt.
Bernie Sanders was the first presidential candidate to charter a flight on Eastern (from DesMoines IA to Manchester NH during the primary).
At the time, some felt it was appropriate metaphor for someone like Bernie (who usually flies coach on scheduled airlines), to charter a flight from an airline that made its inaugural flight from Miami to socialist/communist Havana and back...
It says even in the summary that it isn't "Mike Pence's Plane" - it appears to be Eastern Airlines plane....
I was about to ask, "What? Eastern went out of business long ago.". Didn't know someone had bought up the branding and started a new airline with it to confuse people.
Bit of trivia, the original Eastern Airlines sold their east coast shuttle service to some NY real-estate developer who renamed it after himself...
A lot of people think if they stand to make $1 on a $1 zillion project they should do it, but the real world doesn't work that way.
$1 profit is *way* more than some startup businesses plan for (many have no plan at all for profit, only market share), and yet they often still do it and sometimes raise billions of dollars in the process...
Let's take Twitter as an example. They currently have about -$2B in retained earnings (mostly convertible debt). There is no current business plan to pay this back and their most recent strategy was to attempt to sell the business and eat the debt (and their most recent suitor Salesforce has walked away). Yet Twitter is a real world company "zillion" dollar project...
The problem with Google Fiber was they didn't have enough dumb investors to soak (they only had Alphabet)...
Actually, my question is, what do any of these three nations have to gain by invading any of one another? We all have the same stuff, which is to say that we all have land, water, oil, and mineral resources. Even in that case, where they have a shared border so it's relatively convenient, what is there to gain? Certainly nothing that couldn't be had cheaper at home.
You are forgetting the geo-political angle. One countries loss in influence is another countries gain. It isn't about the land, water, old and mineral resources you have in your own backyard, it's having control next to your backyard. Japan started by annexing Manchuria as it's start to dominance over Asia. Italy took over Somalia, Eritria, and Abyssinia, Germany simply took over territory like Austria and Czechoslovakia. War really didn't start until Germany invaded Poland.
This is why this whole Ukraine/Crimea and South-China Sea events are so disturbing, one hopes that this isn't some sort canary in the coal-mine...
It's not a race but it is used by racists as a proxy for race, since most muslims aren't white.
Most Christians aren't white either...
Although the US and Europe have less than 50% of the Christian population, only about 70% are white... In other geographies that make up the rest of 2B Christians, the dominate areas are Central/South America, Sub-saharan Africa, the Asia Pacific which only have a small fraction of whites. There are about as many Christans in Sub-Saharan Africa as all of Europe combined...
Of course you can't explain statistics like this to racists...
Then I asked her to point out ONE THING that Bob Dole would do different from Bill Clinton and vice-versa.
Perhaps in an alternate universe, if Bob Dole had won, maybe Elisabeth Dole would be running for president instead of Hillary right about now....
... then they must surely know what direction it lies in, from the sun. Working backwards from there, they should be able to narrow the area to search sufficiently that they ought to at least figure out exactly where they need to be looking to find this object.
The researchers did not infer the existence of this new planet from looking at the sun tilt, the tilt was reasoned to be potentially explainable by a theorized planet that we haven't discovered yet.
The planet in question was inferred by looking at the statistical orbital distribution of Kuiper Belt Objects. They have a general idea of it's orbital inclination for this mysterious new planet they only have a general range of mass (~10x earth) and orbital distance (~20x Neptune's orbit). That makes a pretty big chunk of space to search for a relatively small object that is not luminous among very slowly moving objects (~15K year orbit).
The original analysis that suggested this new planet is currently only statistical using orbital dynamics, not some specific N-body problem they are solving. They are only attempting to estimate the potential orbital objects that could cause of perturbation of the Sedna-like objects and KBOs relative to long term evolution of orbits. AFAIK, to do their analysis they replaced the orbit of the planet with equivalent massive "wires" that traced currently know orbits because the planets orbit in a timescale much shorter than the proposed planet (and thus exchange angular momentum between themselves and a distant perturb-er which they are analyzing at different timescale). Statistic analysis also showed it likely to have a perihelion opposite to the aggregate distribution of the KBOs. This means they only have a few orbital parameters for this object relative to long-term orbital evolution, not a realistic way of determining where along this 10K-20K year orbit it actually is today.
Anything that another person can see, or hear, or record, simply is not private. We have established a few exceptions such as talking to one's doctor, or minister. But what we have going on is a situation in which people are demanding the right to lie, to be secretive, to do wrong, or to be able to deny their own behavior. Frankly if you sun bathe, nude in your back yard an airplane can snap a photo easily these days. there is simply no real difference between a plane at 2,000 feet and a drone at 100 feet. There is a reason that Trump could molest or that Cosby could drug and rape people. Imagine if voice recordings and hidden cams were totally legal in all situations. How much fraud on a used car lot could be prevented? And we don't even want to think about the number of cheating wives and husbands would be caught and exposed.
If the TRUTH shall set us free we must do everything humanly possible to allow total scrutiny of every individual so that truth permeates every aspect of our lives . Imagine every word in a business being live and available for anyone in the world to watch and preserve. Maybe your talcum powder that just killed you would not have contained asbestos. And how low would your taxes be if all economics were wide open for all to inspect?
The real issue is not about drones. It is about whether we like a world filled with lies and crimes or a world in which truth permeates every bit of everyone's lives.
Let's see... If "the truth" would permeate all interactions, I suspect that authoritarian regimes would rule the world as they would be able to quash all opposition before they could get organized... I suspect that people trying to leave dominating relationships (assuming the actually abusive ones are caught by authorities), would have their efforts thwarted by their partners. The only reason you want to hide is from the person who has the power which could be the government but it could easily be your mother, father, or spouse...
Not so sure I want to live in that zero privacy world. But if you want to be a Borg, you are welcome to it...
See my previous post...
Actually, Nasa originally offered them a *sky-crane* (not a balloon landing), but congress decided we couldn't afford to participate in this mission...