I find it incredible that someone was actually able to consume 77TB of bandwidth in a month on a residential connection.
You find it incredible that a small ISP (which is essentially what he was running) that's streaming video to (I presume) most of it's users (from the sound of it) consumed 77TB of data in a month? The person who needs to have his nerd qualifications rechecked isn't the OP.
Not to mention - it's generally the hobbyists that don't care (as much as the military). The military buys gears that's got to be packed and unpacked and shipped across the country or around the world (sometimes many times over the life of the gear), has to operate in all kinds of weather, etc... etc... The hobbyist looks out his window and if it's freezing or raining he just goes and plays WoW or works on his next project or whatever.
Not by any useful or rational definition of the word. You want to pervert it, go right ahead, but at least have the balls to admit you're doing so. Or realize that you're ignorant and using a word that does not mean what you think it does.
you don't always have to know the outcome or all the steps to have a valid scientific method
If you don't have a theory - then by definition it isn't the scientific method. I retract my earlier statement about 'balls', you're just ignorant and willing redefine words in order to reach a pre-ordained political conclusion.
I'm glad to see that at least some people have morals. Wanting to experiment with science and NOT hurting anyone in the process shouldn't be met by being kicked out of school
While that's a true statement - it's completely irrelevant in this case.
She wasn't doing any kind of reasonable "science experiment" - she mixing together chemicals as recommended by a friend to make a smoke bomb. She had no idea what the chemicals were, no real idea of the possible or probable outcomes, etc... etc... About as "scientific" as Russian Roulette. Let's not elevate her behavior into something it wasn't.
The Minuteman III has ports in the third stage that can be blown to vent the motor case, slowing or stopping the burning of the grain, and essentially shutting down[1] the motor. It's this vented gas ("dumped fuel") that produced the halo. When the ports are blown the motor decelerates rapidly, so they use this to their advantage by simultaneously separating the bus, thus ensuring the third stage will be clear as the bus maneuvers to start releasing warheads.
This used to be a fairly common method of controlling the final velocity of solid fueled ballistic missiles. It was used by; MM-I, MM-II, MM-II, Peacekeeper, Polaris A-1 and A-2, Poseidon C-3, ASROC, and SUBROC. (There may be more, those are just the ones I know about.) Trident -I and -II use GEMS (Generalized Energy Management Steering) to adjust the missiles trajectory so that at burnout it's at the desired final velocity.
[1] Yes Virginia, you can (contrary to what "everyone knows") essentially shut down a solid rocket motor - but it's a very violent event. A tandem staged missile can just leave the decelerating stage in it's wake, but the Shuttle cannot. Whether they simply blew the connections to the ET (which also exposes the orbiter to the sandblast of the SRB's exhaust), or blew ports in the SRB casing, the transient forces would turn the stack into confetti. The orbiter would be tossed into the airstream and be torn apart. (This is what happened to Challenger when the ET broke up after the RH SRB came loose and crashed into it. The subsequent explosion, while very impressive to the naked eye, was actually very low pressure and low energy and played very little part in destroying the orbiter.) The looked into using an Orbiter mounted solid fueled escape motor to power away from the stack under thrust and control, but it turned out to be way too heavy. (Even if they traded fuel in the ET for the solid fuel in the escape motor and used it for part of the final kick into orbit.)
Being capable of refinancing means you have solid credit rating and that means investing world believes Tesla Motors will be capable to repay this loan.
A company can sell bonds even with crappiest credit rating... (though the crappier the rating, the steeper the interest rate has to be in order to attract buyers), so no selling bonds doesn't mean what you think it does. (You appear have bonds and loans confused.)
I think they wanted to make this gesture of repaying it sooner. It sure sends positive message about company's future.
Only to those who are impressed by meaningless gestures.
I think this sends an excellent message to naysayers: Not all American startups with DOE loans end up like Solyndra.
Keep in mind they didn't repay the loan out of revenue - they refinanced. (I.E. they sold bonds to repay the government loan.)
Bravo to Tesla, and let's hope the current trend continues.
Let's not count our chickens before they're hatched - Tesla is still saddled with over half a billion dollars in debt from this bond issue alone, and not so much currently in the way of income to cover that debt. They're a very long way from being in the black.
For starters, people actually use and like Google's products
And people actually use and like Yahoo's products too.
As to the rest of your comment - your ignorance is only not stunning because it's (unfortunately) not uncommon. There's more to the world than search. And yes, I see new Yahoo mail accounts regularly.
The one last bastion of Yahoo that Google has not yet conquered is Finance
Finance, and picture sharing (Flickr), and personalized homepages (My Yahoo), and Groups (Yahoo Groups) and... you really have utterly no clue what you're talking about. Get out of your Google fanboy bubble.
Yahoo *could* stage a comeback, but why? What makes a product or service from Yahoo unique?
Frankly, you could ask the same question, substituting "Google", and give the same answer.
The only real difference between them is Google is (and inexplicably remains) a darling of the soi-disant technorati. Hence the constant stream of comments like yours and those in the summary. In reality, Yahoo! is much like Facebook, doing decently despite the fact that a narrow and shallow demographic disapproves of it.
What's going to kill Yahoo! though is Mayer's misguided attempts to make it hip and kewl and l33t and taking on Google rather than keeping it functional and improving the dodgy and bodgy bits. The Flickr 'upgrade' is nothing but flash and sizzle that's added nothing, dropped existing functionality, and ignored some longstanding problems. Worse yet - ads are coming...
Why should I use Hangouts? It talks to only a few people in my circle of friends, all of whom also have accounts with some non-google resource.
I'm asking myself the same question about Picasa - Google has made it very difficult to share pictures outside of their ecosystem.
Wouldn't this be yet another reason to abandon Google+? I mean, it's great 'n all, but almost nobody I know uses it. Which kinda defeats the purpose of a social network. It's like, let's invent a social network for hermits. Nobody talks to you, but that's what, you know, is supposed to happen.
Google has demonstrated, repeatedly, that they don't "get" social - and equally has demonstrated a stunning inability to learn from their past mistakes.
That works - if there are fat enough pipes available to handle the data. If there isn't, and you have to roll your own, then it's probably not cost efficient to do so.
. I currently work part-time doing unskilled labor, and one guy I work with, after only being there 7 years, makes over 70k a year working no more overtime than many salaried employees. When he tops out in 3 more years he will probably be making close to, if not more than $100k. And this is in a job that requires no more than a high school diploma.
Where the hell do you live and what kind of job pays an unskilled laborer $100k/yr? (I'm presuming in USD.) More to the point, what the tax rate and cost of living where you are?
These questions may sound facetious, but they're serious - someone in a big city may make impressive sounding money, but actually be just treading water because of the local cost of living. (That's one of the reasons people endure hellish commutes - to get out of the city to where land and living is cheaper.) That, and I find it exceedingly hard to buy unskilled labor making anything anywhere near $70k except where labor is scarce - so why aren't people flocking there and driving down the labor rates?
Re:funny comparing to "high speed rail" elsewhere
on
Amtrak Upgrades Wi-Fi
·
· Score: 1
It is hard to talk about what makes "economic sense" here, since the passenger rail business was killed by competition from heavily subsidized alternatives: the interstate highway system, and airplanes.
Um, no. Passenger rail was always a money losing proposition, maintained by the railroads despite this for prestige and as a loss leader for their freight services. But the railroad's physical plant were beat to hell after nationalization in WWI, a decade declining revenue of the Great Depression, and extraordinarily high traffic levels during WWII.. So when faced with huge capital modernizations costs and declining freight revenue due to competition from the interstate.... passenger service was thrown overboard. Air travel in the US was largely irrelevant to the issue as during the time frame in question (mostly the 1950's), air travel wasn't widespread and was *very* expensive.
The wiki link to "bast" refers to a dozen species that produce basts, including flax, wisteria, mulberry, and kudzu. Is there a reason to go for hemp in particular, aside from the usual hemp-will-solve-everything? Flax is also produced in industrial quantities. TFA doesn't mention why they chose hemp bast.
"hemp-will-solve-everything" and "let's get a foot in the door for legalization" probably account for a large part of the choice... but you can also look at the other plants for more reasons. For example, yes, flax is produced in industrial quantities, but the output is already spoken for. Any additional use for flax must compete with those existing uses. Wisteria is a climbing vine, so production will require the use of some kind of support and thus increased labor costs both in the maintenance of the supports and at harvest time. (Kudzu has the same issue.) Mulberry is a tree, so you likely have a long lead time to harvest, and since bast is found in the bark the ratio of useful material to waste is likely to be low. (Meaning uses will have to be found for that waste to make the process more economical.) Hemp on the other hand is freestanding, and the leaves and seeds (even of the non psychoactive varieties) have commercial value.
In addition we don't know is the proportion of bast available in each plant, or how easy it is to extract and process.
So, there's a lot of factors to consider, not all of which are obvious from just looking at list in a Wikipedia article.
(And it *is* Wikipedia - "a" wiki, one of thousands, not "the" wiki.)
We've known that the Earth's axis wanders about a bit for some decades now, so presumably there's a mechanism already in place to compensate for it. This is just a change to the magnitude and direction of that wander. Not to mention that (AFAIK) most geodetic measurements are made in reference to a known, fixed, survey station - so all you have to do is monitor (or resurvey) that fixed reference point at intervals sufficient to the accuracy you desire.
Translation: "I really, really want to find a way to slam drones... but I can't, so I'll nitpick, play semantic games, and on a heavy spin and smokescreen so I can pretend that the drone really wasn't all the important".
Assuming this takes off, what we'll probably see will be an arms race of a sort. Missile designers would start using reflective surfaces and internal insulators while the laser designers would increase power, focusing ability, and introduce wavelength shifts (maybe dynamically). This could get interesting.
From the point of view of the defenders such a race is a good thing - because it increases the difficulty of handling the missile, and either decreases it's range or decreases it's payload (for the same size missile as prior to the arms race). All the defenders have to do is increase the power - which they're going to do anyway.
Probably because they're limited by the vast array of third party devices their streams must play on. Adding different codecs to the mix would increase their operational costs and complexity even as it reduced their bandwidth costs... so it's not clear a priori that such a switch is beneficial overall.
To know that for certain, we'd need their internal numbers - and they aren't giving those - up.
Perhaps users are heeding Stallman's warning on Chromebooks.
You're joking, right? Please tell me this wasn't actually a serious statement...
Here on Slashdot, they're probably not joking - but that's a demographic that's an even smaller slice of the real world than Chromebooks are of theirs.
Chromebooks have been topping the Amazon sales charts. Clearly TFA's numbers are bullshit because you don't top Amazon by selling less than 5,000 units.
Clearly, you're ignorant or stupid because you ignored the disclaimer in the next paragraph:
If you take a look at the top one hundred list, you'll see it's mostly filled with low-end consumer Windows laptops, with some high-end gaming laptops and MacBooks peppered in. Only a few models of Chromebooks are being sold, so it's easier for a single model to get the traction needed to rise in the charts. There isn't really an equivalent Windows laptop to rally around, so sales are more spread out.
So even if a Chromebook is the best selling individual computer, it falls far behind the best selling OS. Which leads to the important stuff in TFA - the number in use is vanishingly small despite the misleadingly impressive performance on Amazon. This tells us that over the months that Chromebooks have been on sale, users aren't dumping existing laptops for or replacing older laptops with Chromebooks. This actually should come as no surprise... as Chromebooks sit uncomfortably in a narrow niche between tablets and full laptops, where there isn't really much of a market. It's bulkier than a tablet, without offering much more in the way of performance, and vastly inferior to a full laptop in power.
It takes.125 seconds to destroy a black target,.1251 to destroy a non-black target. Seriously, at these energy levels the color of the target is largely irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
You find it incredible that a small ISP (which is essentially what he was running) that's streaming video to (I presume) most of it's users (from the sound of it) consumed 77TB of data in a month? The person who needs to have his nerd qualifications rechecked isn't the OP.
Not to mention - it's generally the hobbyists that don't care (as much as the military). The military buys gears that's got to be packed and unpacked and shipped across the country or around the world (sometimes many times over the life of the gear), has to operate in all kinds of weather, etc... etc... The hobbyist looks out his window and if it's freezing or raining he just goes and plays WoW or works on his next project or whatever.
Not by any useful or rational definition of the word. You want to pervert it, go right ahead, but at least have the balls to admit you're doing so. Or realize that you're ignorant and using a word that does not mean what you think it does.
If you don't have a theory - then by definition it isn't the scientific method. I retract my earlier statement about 'balls', you're just ignorant and willing redefine words in order to reach a pre-ordained political conclusion.
While that's a true statement - it's completely irrelevant in this case.
She wasn't doing any kind of reasonable "science experiment" - she mixing together chemicals as recommended by a friend to make a smoke bomb. She had no idea what the chemicals were, no real idea of the possible or probable outcomes, etc... etc... About as "scientific" as Russian Roulette. Let's not elevate her behavior into something it wasn't.
The Minuteman III has ports in the third stage that can be blown to vent the motor case, slowing or stopping the burning of the grain, and essentially shutting down[1] the motor. It's this vented gas ("dumped fuel") that produced the halo. When the ports are blown the motor decelerates rapidly, so they use this to their advantage by simultaneously separating the bus, thus ensuring the third stage will be clear as the bus maneuvers to start releasing warheads.
This used to be a fairly common method of controlling the final velocity of solid fueled ballistic missiles. It was used by; MM-I, MM-II, MM-II, Peacekeeper, Polaris A-1 and A-2, Poseidon C-3, ASROC, and SUBROC. (There may be more, those are just the ones I know about.) Trident -I and -II use GEMS (Generalized Energy Management Steering) to adjust the missiles trajectory so that at burnout it's at the desired final velocity.
[1] Yes Virginia, you can (contrary to what "everyone knows") essentially shut down a solid rocket motor - but it's a very violent event. A tandem staged missile can just leave the decelerating stage in it's wake, but the Shuttle cannot. Whether they simply blew the connections to the ET (which also exposes the orbiter to the sandblast of the SRB's exhaust), or blew ports in the SRB casing, the transient forces would turn the stack into confetti. The orbiter would be tossed into the airstream and be torn apart. (This is what happened to Challenger when the ET broke up after the RH SRB came loose and crashed into it. The subsequent explosion, while very impressive to the naked eye, was actually very low pressure and low energy and played very little part in destroying the orbiter.) The looked into using an Orbiter mounted solid fueled escape motor to power away from the stack under thrust and control, but it turned out to be way too heavy. (Even if they traded fuel in the ET for the solid fuel in the escape motor and used it for part of the final kick into orbit.)
A company can sell bonds even with crappiest credit rating... (though the crappier the rating, the steeper the interest rate has to be in order to attract buyers), so no selling bonds doesn't mean what you think it does. (You appear have bonds and loans confused.)
Only to those who are impressed by meaningless gestures.
Keep in mind they didn't repay the loan out of revenue - they refinanced. (I.E. they sold bonds to repay the government loan.)
Let's not count our chickens before they're hatched - Tesla is still saddled with over half a billion dollars in debt from this bond issue alone, and not so much currently in the way of income to cover that debt. They're a very long way from being in the black.
And people actually use and like Yahoo's products too.
As to the rest of your comment - your ignorance is only not stunning because it's (unfortunately) not uncommon. There's more to the world than search. And yes, I see new Yahoo mail accounts regularly.
Finance, and picture sharing (Flickr), and personalized homepages (My Yahoo), and Groups (Yahoo Groups) and... you really have utterly no clue what you're talking about. Get out of your Google fanboy bubble.
That was my comment too... "A developer concludes that perks are vital for developers" - whoulda thunk it?
Frankly, you could ask the same question, substituting "Google", and give the same answer.
The only real difference between them is Google is (and inexplicably remains) a darling of the soi-disant technorati. Hence the constant stream of comments like yours and those in the summary. In reality, Yahoo! is much like Facebook, doing decently despite the fact that a narrow and shallow demographic disapproves of it.
What's going to kill Yahoo! though is Mayer's misguided attempts to make it hip and kewl and l33t and taking on Google rather than keeping it functional and improving the dodgy and bodgy bits. The Flickr 'upgrade' is nothing but flash and sizzle that's added nothing, dropped existing functionality, and ignored some longstanding problems. Worse yet - ads are coming...
I'm asking myself the same question about Picasa - Google has made it very difficult to share pictures outside of their ecosystem.
Google has demonstrated, repeatedly, that they don't "get" social - and equally has demonstrated a stunning inability to learn from their past mistakes.
That works - if there are fat enough pipes available to handle the data. If there isn't, and you have to roll your own, then it's probably not cost efficient to do so.
It's Slashdot and the tech world's version of Keeping Up with the Kardashians.
Where the hell do you live and what kind of job pays an unskilled laborer $100k/yr? (I'm presuming in USD.) More to the point, what the tax rate and cost of living where you are?
These questions may sound facetious, but they're serious - someone in a big city may make impressive sounding money, but actually be just treading water because of the local cost of living. (That's one of the reasons people endure hellish commutes - to get out of the city to where land and living is cheaper.) That, and I find it exceedingly hard to buy unskilled labor making anything anywhere near $70k except where labor is scarce - so why aren't people flocking there and driving down the labor rates?
Um, no. Passenger rail was always a money losing proposition, maintained by the railroads despite this for prestige and as a loss leader for their freight services. But the railroad's physical plant were beat to hell after nationalization in WWI, a decade declining revenue of the Great Depression, and extraordinarily high traffic levels during WWII.. So when faced with huge capital modernizations costs and declining freight revenue due to competition from the interstate.... passenger service was thrown overboard. Air travel in the US was largely irrelevant to the issue as during the time frame in question (mostly the 1950's), air travel wasn't widespread and was *very* expensive.
This!
"Your darkroom is now [Google's] datacenter"? No thank you.
"hemp-will-solve-everything" and "let's get a foot in the door for legalization" probably account for a large part of the choice... but you can also look at the other plants for more reasons. For example, yes, flax is produced in industrial quantities, but the output is already spoken for. Any additional use for flax must compete with those existing uses. Wisteria is a climbing vine, so production will require the use of some kind of support and thus increased labor costs both in the maintenance of the supports and at harvest time. (Kudzu has the same issue.) Mulberry is a tree, so you likely have a long lead time to harvest, and since bast is found in the bark the ratio of useful material to waste is likely to be low. (Meaning uses will have to be found for that waste to make the process more economical.) Hemp on the other hand is freestanding, and the leaves and seeds (even of the non psychoactive varieties) have commercial value.
In addition we don't know is the proportion of bast available in each plant, or how easy it is to extract and process.
So, there's a lot of factors to consider, not all of which are obvious from just looking at list in a Wikipedia article.
(And it *is* Wikipedia - "a" wiki, one of thousands, not "the" wiki.)
We've known that the Earth's axis wanders about a bit for some decades now, so presumably there's a mechanism already in place to compensate for it. This is just a change to the magnitude and direction of that wander. Not to mention that (AFAIK) most geodetic measurements are made in reference to a known, fixed, survey station - so all you have to do is monitor (or resurvey) that fixed reference point at intervals sufficient to the accuracy you desire.
But, interestingly enough, you don't supply any other reason for your tortuous word games.
Translation: "I really, really want to find a way to slam drones... but I can't, so I'll nitpick, play semantic games, and on a heavy spin and smokescreen so I can pretend that the drone really wasn't all the important".
From the point of view of the defenders such a race is a good thing - because it increases the difficulty of handling the missile, and either decreases it's range or decreases it's payload (for the same size missile as prior to the arms race). All the defenders have to do is increase the power - which they're going to do anyway.
Probably because they're limited by the vast array of third party devices their streams must play on. Adding different codecs to the mix would increase their operational costs and complexity even as it reduced their bandwidth costs... so it's not clear a priori that such a switch is beneficial overall.
To know that for certain, we'd need their internal numbers - and they aren't giving those - up.
Here on Slashdot, they're probably not joking - but that's a demographic that's an even smaller slice of the real world than Chromebooks are of theirs.
Clearly, you're ignorant or stupid because you ignored the disclaimer in the next paragraph:
So even if a Chromebook is the best selling individual computer, it falls far behind the best selling OS. Which leads to the important stuff in TFA - the number in use is vanishingly small despite the misleadingly impressive performance on Amazon. This tells us that over the months that Chromebooks have been on sale, users aren't dumping existing laptops for or replacing older laptops with Chromebooks. This actually should come as no surprise... as Chromebooks sit uncomfortably in a narrow niche between tablets and full laptops, where there isn't really much of a market. It's bulkier than a tablet, without offering much more in the way of performance, and vastly inferior to a full laptop in power.
It takes .125 seconds to destroy a black target, .1251 to destroy a non-black target. Seriously, at these energy levels the color of the target is largely irrelevant.