Never mind that electric cars aren't very clean to build.
They only appear that way compared to conventional vehicles because the assumption is that the electric vehicle lifespan will be comparable to the conventional vehicle lifespan. The reality is they wont be. Electric vehicles as a technology are far more robust and reliable than conventional combustion technology. It is a simple function of complexity and wear. Electric vehicles will have lifespans that are affected mostly by collisions instated of wear. This stands in stark contrast to I.C. engine vehicles... Try redoing the math when you have to provide two conventional vehicles to get the same usage as a single plug in EV, and you'll find that EVs are in fact far better for the environment no matter where the electricity comes from.
It is beyond me how Americans can complain about gas prices. In Sweden people pay more than twice as much, and everyone seems to be fine with it. On top of that, Americans have even more money to spend than do swedes. So, are Americans cheap, or just spoiled?
In Sweden there exists a viable public transportation system that does not rely on private automobiles. While that is not universally true for the country, it is true for the population centers, and travel between the population centers. In the US, public transportation has been systematically hamstrung by several special interests over the last century. The end result is that without a reliable personal vehicle it is near impossible to earn a living wage. Living within public transport range of non-poverty employment is cripplingly expensive, so the only real alternative is to own our own vehicles. In much of Europe a vehicle is a luxury. In the U.S., its a necessity, without which a person is permanently consigned to effective poverty.
You say I'm getting robbed, yet I drive a nice car. I live in a nice home, in a nice city. I'm about to buy a beautiful house.
You're being robbed. Gold is the indicator of trouble to come. The total US debt per person is now $50,000+-.
We've been living high off the hog by borrowing the money. If you have a wife and two kids, you're portion of the debt is $200k. How much did you say you were putting down on that new house?
Oh and by the way, China called, they are calling the loan. Have a nice day.
That's not really it. It depends on where your generating capacity is coming from. If it's coming from coal plants, you shouldn't buy an electric car—gas is cleaner. If it's coming from wind, you should definitely buy an electric car if it makes economic sense to you personally.
Actually, You're missing the entire point of an electric car. People think you should get one because of environmental concerns. The reasons to get one are entirely economic, and the tipping point is almost here (if not already). Electric cars use far cheaper electricity for their operation. the EPA has an MPGe rating that gives a pretty good comparison of the *cost* of fuel. This means that for the cost of the electricity on average, you could use gas and get that same mileage for you money. There is a reason that Electric cars are rated in the high double digits or low triple digits. I own a Miev, and the cost of my daily commute is so low I haven't noticed the difference on my monthly utility bill. I drive about 30 miles a day 5 Days a week. The vehicle cost me $490 / month for 72 months. The cost of Electricity I have estimated to be about $23-$26 / month. Now comes the good part: Cost of electricity is really very stable, and does not increase very fast. That means that in 5 years when gas is $6 / gallon, and you are spending $250+ / month on gas, I will still be spending $25. Also, Gasoline engines are complex and easily damaged through mishandling and improper maintenance. A gas engine really only has a life expectancy of about 5,000 to 10,000 hours (200 to 400 k miles). Electric motors with MTBF of 50,000+ hours are not uncommon. That means that the motor in your electric car is likely to out-live you. The Motor controllers (if properly designed) have only one part with a low MTBF, and if properly designed, this $10 part should be swappable on the controller. My Miev has coolant, but it doesn't run hot, so there is little likelihood of normal operating resulting in damage to the cooling system. Regenerative braking significantly reduces the wear load on the brakes making them last for 3x or 4x longer. In all, my only real expense in the first 5 years will be tires... I expect that reduction in maintenance costs alone will save a further $40 / month. Now lets add it all up and figure out the ROI. First, We will use three use cases: the first 200,000 miles, 400,000 and 1,000,000. For 200,000 miles, the gas car uses 8,000 gallons of gas at an average of $5 per gallon (remember this has to include reasonable price increases over the next 14 years). That comes to $40,000 for gas. The cost of the vehicle is about $20,000. The cost of maintenance is about $5,500. (oil changes brakes and tires. Total cost is $65,500 for 14 years and the car is basically on its last legs. Many parts on the verge of failure, unreliable. Now take the electric: Base cost $35,000. Cost of fuel is $4,000 ($25 per month for 168 months). Maintenance costs $1,750. Total cost is $40,750, and the car is mostly in running order with one caveat: It needs a new battery. Todays cost: $10,000 (eight years from now this cost is expected to be half what it is today. Total cost for 14 years: $50,750. The electric has a clear advantage.
Now for the 400k miles scenario:
for the second 200,000 miles, the gas vehicle costs an additional $56,000 in gas (gas went up to $7 average for the period, an increase of 28% over 14 years (2% inflation). Costs of maintenance have soared as all the moving parts have worn out and needed to be replaced. $7,300. Total cost for the second 14 years: $64,300. The electric costs have gone up also. Electricity now costs $35 / month (2% across 14 years), so the cost comes to $5,900. Cost of maintenance includes another battery replacement for an additional $10,000 plus the regular $1,800. Lets add in an additional $4000 X-factor just to cover incidentals, like maybe we fried a motor controller, or some other unexpected weakness in this particular cars design. Total: $21,700.
I fly a small plane for fun. I'm certainly more dangerous up there than a military or airline pilot, and it's far less efficient.
At some point, you have to let people do what they're going to do even if there's some measurable risk to the public. It's a fine balancing act sometimes, but it's also part of a free society.
If driving required the same degree of training, and was as controlled as flying then I don't think it would be an issue. The problem is that they give *every* idiot 17 year old, who asks for one, a license. Now, driving on a closed track on the other hand, is something entirely different. In short, you and your plane pose orders of magnitude less risk to the public than one driver on a cell phone...
On a side note, try flying your little single engine plane into commercial airspace, and not obeying ATC. Lets see how long it takes you to get shot down... If ground traffic had the equivalent of an ATC, there would be far less accidents. Also of note would be that if air travel involved the same kinds of volumetric density as ground travel, it would be virtually impossible for a human to pilot an aircraft safely.
'Why did you turn off the computer when you know it is proven to be safer?'
"Because my brain operates at a frequency modern computers cannot even begin to match, and it cannot be hacked."
And yet somehow, in spite of that, you have just demonstrated exactly why You should not be allowed to operate a lethal weapon on our streets. When it comes to objective evaluation of the situation, you are fail... Paranoia != Righteousness
And sometimes it's just more fun to drive the car yourself.
I'll bet its pretty fun to drive while under the influence of your favorite drug too, that doesn't mean its a good idea, or should be tolerated.
If it can be demonstrated that autopilots are significantly safer than human drivers, then manual drivers are by definition endangering the public welfare for their own amusement. Sounds like the functional definition of a sociopath to me...
Happens all the time. Your forgot to turn off the "Professsional Stuntman" option. For some reason they have that box checked by default. You might also want to double check the settings for "Knight-Rider Style Turbo Boost" and "Assume I Have Access to Airwolf."
You forgot to turn off the "Can swim 3000 miles without drowning option". Looks like your new parking space is significantly below sea level...
It is illegal for a group of CEOs to join an organization dedicated to fixing prices. Or did you think that was a bad idea too? Both concepts undermine competition and are bad for everyone except those in the organization.
Nice straw man, but you unintentionally pointed to exactly the right comparison. CEOs head organizations which are comprised of many people gathering together to obtain mutual benefit, namely pooled resources that allow members of the organization to engage in activities and reap benefits that they could not individually. These folks all gather together to have greater bargaining power in the market. We even privilege these collectivist organizations under law by providing the individual members immunity for the (negative) actions of the organization.
The point wasn't that all organizations are bad and / or should be illegal, it was that not all organizations should be tolerated / legal. I can come up with lots of organizations that are good, or at least innocuous too. I was giving an example of an organization that was bad for the same reasons that unions are bad. That doesn't mean that unions don't have their uses, just that all else being equal, they are bad for everyone who is not in the union, including joe average citizen. Unions are not victimless, and some of their behavior should be a crime.
If the politicians aren't listening to teachers about what education policy should be, then how do politicians have an informed opinion on such things? Oh yes, that's what lobbyists are for.
The problem with teachers dictating education policy is that our current system for electing / keeping / compensating teachers has nothing to do with their effectiveness at the job, so we have a lot of them (so called experts) who have a lousy track record. I wouldn't have an issue with a high pay scale for teachers if they were the best in their industry, but tenure makes sure that teachers pay is separated from their performance. Unions hate pay-for-performance because their members hate it. Their members hate it because their pay (and even their jobs) would depend on their level of performance. Some of them could loose their jobs. They would have to worry all the time about how well they were doing (like the rest of us).
That is not a bad thing. It is a good thing for everyone except the low performing teachers, and everyone except the low performers benefit if the slackers find another career. Its not the pay scale that has teachers unions being the bad guys, its tenure... Give up the tenure guys. Take the hint. Embrace the change that is coming, and be at the forefront, or fight it tooth and nail and get steamrollered. Either way, our education system will change to benefit the students. Like it or not, the lazy days of throw it out there and see what takes are over. Now you'll have to be good at your jobs to keep your jobs.
Why are you paying money out of your pay check for wars you probably don't think you should be in? After all your tax bill would be considerably smaller if the US didn't spend more on military spending than the next 26 countries combined.
That's a disingenuous argument. One thing has nothing to do with the other. You might be right about taxes, but it has no bearing on the issue at hand.
Why? This is (or supposed to be) a free country, you should be able to join any organization you want.
It is illegal for a group of CEOs to join an organization dedicated to fixing prices. Or did you think that was a bad idea too? Both concepts undermine competition and are bad for everyone except those in the organization.
Why am I paying out of my paycheck to something that will use for political campaigning for a party I may or may not believe in.
You need to investigate your Beck Rights. You are probably due a fairly sizable pile of money, and if you make enough of a public spectacle about it could potentially cripple your local chapter. Depending on how good or bad your local is, this could potentially help improve conditions, or it could make things worse. Make sure you fully understand the consequences before taking this approach. If you simply press the issue yourself, you probably will have a court battle ahead of you
(you will win, this has been to the supreme court already). If you go about to all of your like-minded co-workers, you can expect a fair amount of backlash from the union.
Actually, that is intelligent design. No doubt your mutations tell themselves you don't exist and they created themselves by evolution.
No, Its Genetic Engineering. Intelligent design would be to create the raw gene sequences from nothing. Genetic Engineering can be more accurately described as cut-and-paste.
But pot use after age 18 doesn't have long-term affects on IQ, only for the time immediately after consuming the drug. This was an important point lost in the summary. So, marijuana should be illegal for young kids to smoke. If marijuana were legal and regulated like alcohol, we would see less young people abusing the drug.
Spoken like a true politician. I can tell you're not a parent of a teenager. Making it illegal makes "MORE* young people abuse it, not less. Prohibition makes any problem worse, not better. Why do we have to learn that lesson over and over and over? The only thing that works reasonably well is good parenting (Talk to your children, stay involved in their lives). Everything else is abdication.
How does your laptop computer calculate remaining battery life?
It doesn't matter anyway because any precomputed equations will be quickly invalidated by battery use. Chaos has a much greater impact on the battery remaining than the variables knowable at design time. End result is that the signal to noise ratio is so low that the battery indicator bar is mostly useless for anything more accurate than +-20%.
How does your browser calculate remaining download time?
If you're Microsoft, you use fancy calc to figure it out. Everyone else uses simple algebra. End users cant tell the difference, but like all things M$, they have wasted just a little more compute time on worthless glitter
How does your tablet distinguish between gestures?
It creates a table of recorded gestures and compares it against successful interpretations to create a profile of gestures. This is done with a learning algorithm not calculus. If you're trying to do a statistical analysis, you're wasting your time. It would take a lot less time to write the learning algorithm, and spend a few hours "training" it than it would to try to do that with statistics.
And with a good concept of math, you can get all those question, plus tell them there likely stock flow, better ways to organize inventory storage, and advance logistics regarding said inventory.
And you can get close enough without anything more complicated than algebra. Lets say you spend 2 weeks doing a statistical analysis that improves your inventory management by 10% (10% reduction in orders for non-stock items). In most cases, this wont affect your bottom line at all, because in most industries, the cost of overstocking by 10% is fairly trivial. If you're operating your warehouse that close to 100% capacity, then you're likely growing anyway, and will soon need a new warehouse anyway. Any other time, adding 10% inventory to an existing warehouse costs almost nothing. Compare that to the $4000 you just spent in time doing a statistical analysis. Advanced logistics only really makes sense in certain circumstances. The rest of the time, its not worth the cost of doing the analysis. That's why so many industries can survive without complex logistics.
The general public doesn't give fuck all about the law or the attitude of large media publishers. They know that free is a damn good price for something that they use to have to pay for and that fact alone will be what continues this trend.
The content industries opened the door to a century ago when they didn't fight to prevent broadcasters from using advertising to pay for free transmissions. The end result is nearly a century of the general public believing that they should be able to turn on their TV / Radio / Whatever and get content for free. An entire generation is locked in against the content owners, and the irony is that their impending doom is driven by the very business model that helped make them all very wealthy.
There is nothing in that statement that implies prejudicing the jury, only an attorneys opinion of the quality and force of the evidence presented. In all truth, it was a stab at judge Koh. It looks like he wants to get her as riled up as possible. It would be a master strategy, as any emotional response she gives, will essentially hand the whole thing to an appeals court faster than you can say conflict-of-interest.
What's the conflict? I think you're confusing "bias" with "conflict".
Did you see what I did there? I never said there was any kind of conflict of interest, but somehow you came away with the impression that I did (which is why I included the original statement for reference). I made no false statements, nor did I Libel anyone, but to the general public it looks like I did in fact say that she was behaving unethically. That is exactly the same maneuver Quinn is using against Koh, and she is falling all over herself in rising to the bait. Quinn is damn good at what he does, and she has badly underestimated him, and badly overestimated herself. She's in over her head, and needs to get out of the pool before she drowns.
I think just about any bookee will give long odds on Samsungs evidence remaining excluded on appeal, and if it is allowed on appeal, it is essentially an admission that Koh shouldn't have excluded... They weren't so late as to justify exclusion, there is plenty of precedent for evidence being introduced later than this and being allowed.
In any event, in a year or so, we can have a look back and have our answer, and you will be able to look back at your posting history and see that I was right.
I don't know if Samsung is doing to push her buttons. As a judge, she has ruled on this particular subject numerous times and it has been appealed. Samsung's lawyers appear to be doing an end-around her orders. While technically she never ruled that Samsung couldn't release the information, they are getting close to breaking the spirit of her rulings. Most judges would not be happy.
You've missed a few important details: She specifically ordered the court documents unsealed That means that by HER orders, the very documents Samsung released are PUBLIC. The spirit of her rulings is being upheld by Samsung, and their lead counsel. She is mad because in the court of public opinion she is going to be crucified (and rightly so) With all her mis-steps and outright blunders, many people will be questioning her fitness to serve. Her only way out now is recuse herself because of her bias and declare a mistrial (start over). God forbid one of these judges should admit their mistakes and pony up. They're human, they make mistakes, but as my father always told me, its not whether you make mistakes that demonstrates your greatness, its how you handle your mistakes. Stepping aside is the only way for her to save any face, and if there were any real justice, it would be the only way to save her job.
I think that argument goes out the window when Samsung specifically says the whole point is to influence the jury:
The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence.
There is nothing in that statement that implies prejudicing the jury, only an attorneys opinion of the quality and force of the evidence presented. In all truth, it was a stab at judge Koh. It looks like he wants to get her as riled up as possible. It would be a master strategy, as any emotional response she gives, will essentially hand the whole thing to an appeals court faster than you can say conflict-of-interest. The judge has to always maintain the image of impartiality, and this Judge Koh has not only failed to maintain the image of impartiality, but is making as ass of herself by flaunting her authority (even where it doesn't exist), and by making bad calls. The evidence presented should not have been excluded, and what any party says to the press after jury selection is none of her damn business. Long story short, she should have known better, and now that the cat is out of the bag, she either recuses herself in shame, or the matter will go to appeal, and her decision is rendered meaningless anyway. She screwed up, and now shes being played for a fool.
Really, not enough vocation training? What programming languages are taught in CS departments? What operating systems are the students required to use? How many schools are not demanding that their students use MS Word? How many electrical engineers are taught to use Matlab (and don't even try to claim that it is the best language for DSP)?
MS Word is not a vocational skill, it is a basic prerequisite for modern life, much like long hand was 100 years ago. I'm talking about things like using Matlab, Autocad, VHDL, HTML, etc... You don't need to know how transport protocols work to write a web app. I guess the point I'm getting at is that for 90+% of the jobs out there (including a surprising number of white collar jobs), you don't need anything approaching a college education for. We train our students from the womb that they have to go to college to get a high paying job, when the irony is that they don't need to go to college to be able to do the high paying job, They only need the degree to get the job. This is why our country needs a vocational track program similar to what is offered in Germany.
Sure, until something happens that you and the other people in your profession didn't learn a formula for:
Most people with a little experience under their belt can figure out what to do, and more importantly, anyone with an intermediate understanding of search techniques can find out how to get the job done. If its something that no one has done before, then you're going to hire a research staff anyway, and you'll want a PHD to do the heavy lifting. Ask yourself, how often do you use Calculus in your job? What about diff eq? how about something more basic like trig? If you're like 99% of Americans the answer to that question is "never". For those that do, most of them never use anything beyond simple algebra and trig. A good example of the principle of what i'm talking about is my own Hobbies. I don't know the first thing about internal combustion engines. I don't know any chemistry,. My knowledge of materials science extends to know that it is a science, and that's where my knowledge stops, but that doesn't stop me from working on my classic car. When I want to fiddle, I go to the web and search for relevant topics, like changing the roller cams, or fixing a broken temp sensor. I don't need any theoretical grounding to be reasonably successful, and neither does a mechanic. Even the guy who designs most of the car doesn't need any theoretical knowledge, just autocad, and some examples to work from. 99% of the job is just fitting a bunch of parts together. Same goes for building a house. You just follow the building codes and you're fine. If you want something too far out of the ordinary, you will hire an architect to do the design, but that doesn't mean that all carpenters and plumbers need to be capable of architectural design, and the world needs a lot more plumbers, electricians, and carpenters than it does architects.
Slashdot Mirror
Never mind that electric cars aren't very clean to build.
They only appear that way compared to conventional vehicles because the assumption is that the electric vehicle lifespan will be comparable to the conventional vehicle lifespan. The reality is they wont be. Electric vehicles as a technology are far more robust and reliable than conventional combustion technology. It is a simple function of complexity and wear. Electric vehicles will have lifespans that are affected mostly by collisions instated of wear. This stands in stark contrast to I.C. engine vehicles... Try redoing the math when you have to provide two conventional vehicles to get the same usage as a single plug in EV, and you'll find that EVs are in fact far better for the environment no matter where the electricity comes from.
-=Geoskd
It is beyond me how Americans can complain about gas prices. In Sweden people pay more than twice as much, and everyone seems to be fine with it. On top of that, Americans have even more money to spend than do swedes. So, are Americans cheap, or just spoiled?
In Sweden there exists a viable public transportation system that does not rely on private automobiles. While that is not universally true for the country, it is true for the population centers, and travel between the population centers. In the US, public transportation has been systematically hamstrung by several special interests over the last century. The end result is that without a reliable personal vehicle it is near impossible to earn a living wage. Living within public transport range of non-poverty employment is cripplingly expensive, so the only real alternative is to own our own vehicles. In much of Europe a vehicle is a luxury. In the U.S., its a necessity, without which a person is permanently consigned to effective poverty.
-=Geoskd
You say I'm getting robbed, yet I drive a nice car. I live in a nice home, in a nice city. I'm about to buy a beautiful house.
You're being robbed. Gold is the indicator of trouble to come. The total US debt per person is now $50,000+-.
We've been living high off the hog by borrowing the money. If you have a wife and two kids, you're portion of the debt is $200k. How much did you say you were putting down on that new house?
Oh and by the way, China called, they are calling the loan. Have a nice day.
-=Geoskd
That's not really it. It depends on where your generating capacity is coming from. If it's coming from coal plants, you shouldn't buy an electric car—gas is cleaner. If it's coming from wind, you should definitely buy an electric car if it makes economic sense to you personally.
Actually, You're missing the entire point of an electric car. People think you should get one because of environmental concerns. The reasons to get one are entirely economic, and the tipping point is almost here (if not already). Electric cars use far cheaper electricity for their operation. the EPA has an MPGe rating that gives a pretty good comparison of the *cost* of fuel. This means that for the cost of the electricity on average, you could use gas and get that same mileage for you money. There is a reason that Electric cars are rated in the high double digits or low triple digits. I own a Miev, and the cost of my daily commute is so low I haven't noticed the difference on my monthly utility bill. I drive about 30 miles a day 5 Days a week. The vehicle cost me $490 / month for 72 months. The cost of Electricity I have estimated to be about $23-$26 / month. Now comes the good part: Cost of electricity is really very stable, and does not increase very fast. That means that in 5 years when gas is $6 / gallon, and you are spending $250+ / month on gas, I will still be spending $25. Also, Gasoline engines are complex and easily damaged through mishandling and improper maintenance. A gas engine really only has a life expectancy of about 5,000 to 10,000 hours (200 to 400 k miles). Electric motors with MTBF of 50,000+ hours are not uncommon. That means that the motor in your electric car is likely to out-live you. The Motor controllers (if properly designed) have only one part with a low MTBF, and if properly designed, this $10 part should be swappable on the controller. My Miev has coolant, but it doesn't run hot, so there is little likelihood of normal operating resulting in damage to the cooling system. Regenerative braking significantly reduces the wear load on the brakes making them last for 3x or 4x longer. In all, my only real expense in the first 5 years will be tires... I expect that reduction in maintenance costs alone will save a further $40 / month. Now lets add it all up and figure out the ROI. First, We will use three use cases: the first 200,000 miles, 400,000 and 1,000,000. For 200,000 miles, the gas car uses 8,000 gallons of gas at an average of $5 per gallon (remember this has to include reasonable price increases over the next 14 years). That comes to $40,000 for gas. The cost of the vehicle is about $20,000. The cost of maintenance is about $5,500. (oil changes brakes and tires. Total cost is $65,500 for 14 years and the car is basically on its last legs. Many parts on the verge of failure, unreliable. Now take the electric: Base cost $35,000. Cost of fuel is $4,000 ($25 per month for 168 months). Maintenance costs $1,750. Total cost is $40,750, and the car is mostly in running order with one caveat: It needs a new battery. Todays cost: $10,000 (eight years from now this cost is expected to be half what it is today. Total cost for 14 years: $50,750. The electric has a clear advantage.
Now for the 400k miles scenario:
for the second 200,000 miles, the gas vehicle costs an additional $56,000 in gas (gas went up to $7 average for the period, an increase of 28% over 14 years (2% inflation). Costs of maintenance have soared as all the moving parts have worn out and needed to be replaced. $7,300. Total cost for the second 14 years: $64,300. The electric costs have gone up also. Electricity now costs $35 / month (2% across 14 years), so the cost comes to $5,900. Cost of maintenance includes another battery replacement for an additional $10,000 plus the regular $1,800. Lets add in an additional $4000 X-factor just to cover incidentals, like maybe we fried a motor controller, or some other unexpected weakness in this particular cars design. Total: $21,700.
So afte
I fly a small plane for fun. I'm certainly more dangerous up there than a military or airline pilot, and it's far less efficient.
At some point, you have to let people do what they're going to do even if there's some measurable risk to the public. It's a fine balancing act sometimes, but it's also part of a free society.
If driving required the same degree of training, and was as controlled as flying then I don't think it would be an issue. The problem is that they give *every* idiot 17 year old, who asks for one, a license. Now, driving on a closed track on the other hand, is something entirely different. In short, you and your plane pose orders of magnitude less risk to the public than one driver on a cell phone...
On a side note, try flying your little single engine plane into commercial airspace, and not obeying ATC. Lets see how long it takes you to get shot down... If ground traffic had the equivalent of an ATC, there would be far less accidents. Also of note would be that if air travel involved the same kinds of volumetric density as ground travel, it would be virtually impossible for a human to pilot an aircraft safely.
-=Geoskd
'Why did you turn off the computer when you know it is proven to be safer?'
"Because my brain operates at a frequency modern computers cannot even begin to match, and it cannot be hacked."
And yet somehow, in spite of that, you have just demonstrated exactly why You should not be allowed to operate a lethal weapon on our streets. When it comes to objective evaluation of the situation, you are fail... Paranoia != Righteousness
-=Gsoekd
And sometimes it's just more fun to drive the car yourself.
I'll bet its pretty fun to drive while under the influence of your favorite drug too, that doesn't mean its a good idea, or should be tolerated.
If it can be demonstrated that autopilots are significantly safer than human drivers, then manual drivers are by definition endangering the public welfare for their own amusement. Sounds like the functional definition of a sociopath to me...
-=Geoskd
Happens all the time. Your forgot to turn off the "Professsional Stuntman" option. For some reason they have that box checked by default. You might also want to double check the settings for "Knight-Rider Style Turbo Boost" and "Assume I Have Access to Airwolf."
You forgot to turn off the "Can swim 3000 miles without drowning option". Looks like your new parking space is significantly below sea level...
It is illegal for a group of CEOs to join an organization dedicated to fixing prices. Or did you think that was a bad idea too? Both concepts undermine competition and are bad for everyone except those in the organization.
Nice straw man, but you unintentionally pointed to exactly the right comparison. CEOs head organizations which are comprised of many people gathering together to obtain mutual benefit, namely pooled resources that allow members of the organization to engage in activities and reap benefits that they could not individually. These folks all gather together to have greater bargaining power in the market. We even privilege these collectivist organizations under law by providing the individual members immunity for the (negative) actions of the organization.
The point wasn't that all organizations are bad and / or should be illegal, it was that not all organizations should be tolerated / legal. I can come up with lots of organizations that are good, or at least innocuous too. I was giving an example of an organization that was bad for the same reasons that unions are bad. That doesn't mean that unions don't have their uses, just that all else being equal, they are bad for everyone who is not in the union, including joe average citizen. Unions are not victimless, and some of their behavior should be a crime.
-=Geoskd
If the politicians aren't listening to teachers about what education policy should be, then how do politicians have an informed opinion on such things? Oh yes, that's what lobbyists are for.
The problem with teachers dictating education policy is that our current system for electing / keeping / compensating teachers has nothing to do with their effectiveness at the job, so we have a lot of them (so called experts) who have a lousy track record. I wouldn't have an issue with a high pay scale for teachers if they were the best in their industry, but tenure makes sure that teachers pay is separated from their performance. Unions hate pay-for-performance because their members hate it. Their members hate it because their pay (and even their jobs) would depend on their level of performance. Some of them could loose their jobs. They would have to worry all the time about how well they were doing (like the rest of us).
That is not a bad thing. It is a good thing for everyone except the low performing teachers, and everyone except the low performers benefit if the slackers find another career. Its not the pay scale that has teachers unions being the bad guys, its tenure... Give up the tenure guys. Take the hint. Embrace the change that is coming, and be at the forefront, or fight it tooth and nail and get steamrollered. Either way, our education system will change to benefit the students. Like it or not, the lazy days of throw it out there and see what takes are over. Now you'll have to be good at your jobs to keep your jobs.
-=Geoskd
Why are you paying money out of your pay check for wars you probably don't think you should be in? After all your tax bill would be considerably smaller if the US didn't spend more on military spending than the next 26 countries combined.
That's a disingenuous argument. One thing has nothing to do with the other. You might be right about taxes, but it has no bearing on the issue at hand.
-=Geoskd
Why? This is (or supposed to be) a free country, you should be able to join any organization you want.
It is illegal for a group of CEOs to join an organization dedicated to fixing prices. Or did you think that was a bad idea too? Both concepts undermine competition and are bad for everyone except those in the organization.
-=Geoskd
Why am I paying out of my paycheck to something that will use for political campaigning for a party I may or may not believe in.
You need to investigate your Beck Rights. You are probably due a fairly sizable pile of money, and if you make enough of a public spectacle about it could potentially cripple your local chapter. Depending on how good or bad your local is, this could potentially help improve conditions, or it could make things worse. Make sure you fully understand the consequences before taking this approach. If you simply press the issue yourself, you probably will have a court battle ahead of you (you will win, this has been to the supreme court already). If you go about to all of your like-minded co-workers, you can expect a fair amount of backlash from the union.
-=Geoskd
Actually, that is intelligent design. No doubt your mutations tell themselves you don't exist and they created themselves by evolution.
No, Its Genetic Engineering. Intelligent design would be to create the raw gene sequences from nothing. Genetic Engineering can be more accurately described as cut-and-paste.
-=Geoskd
But pot use after age 18 doesn't have long-term affects on IQ, only for the time immediately after consuming the drug. This was an important point lost in the summary. So, marijuana should be illegal for young kids to smoke. If marijuana were legal and regulated like alcohol, we would see less young people abusing the drug.
Spoken like a true politician. I can tell you're not a parent of a teenager. Making it illegal makes "MORE* young people abuse it, not less. Prohibition makes any problem worse, not better. Why do we have to learn that lesson over and over and over? The only thing that works reasonably well is good parenting (Talk to your children, stay involved in their lives). Everything else is abdication.
-=Geoskd
How does your laptop computer calculate remaining battery life?
It doesn't matter anyway because any precomputed equations will be quickly invalidated by battery use. Chaos has a much greater impact on the battery remaining than the variables knowable at design time. End result is that the signal to noise ratio is so low that the battery indicator bar is mostly useless for anything more accurate than +-20%.
How does your browser calculate remaining download time?
If you're Microsoft, you use fancy calc to figure it out. Everyone else uses simple algebra. End users cant tell the difference, but like all things M$, they have wasted just a little more compute time on worthless glitter
How does your tablet distinguish between gestures?
It creates a table of recorded gestures and compares it against successful interpretations to create a profile of gestures. This is done with a learning algorithm not calculus. If you're trying to do a statistical analysis, you're wasting your time. It would take a lot less time to write the learning algorithm, and spend a few hours "training" it than it would to try to do that with statistics.
-=Geoskd
And with a good concept of math, you can get all those question, plus tell them there likely stock flow, better ways to organize inventory storage, and advance logistics regarding said inventory.
And you can get close enough without anything more complicated than algebra. Lets say you spend 2 weeks doing a statistical analysis that improves your inventory management by 10% (10% reduction in orders for non-stock items). In most cases, this wont affect your bottom line at all, because in most industries, the cost of overstocking by 10% is fairly trivial. If you're operating your warehouse that close to 100% capacity, then you're likely growing anyway, and will soon need a new warehouse anyway. Any other time, adding 10% inventory to an existing warehouse costs almost nothing. Compare that to the $4000 you just spent in time doing a statistical analysis. Advanced logistics only really makes sense in certain circumstances. The rest of the time, its not worth the cost of doing the analysis. That's why so many industries can survive without complex logistics.
-=Geoskd
Why are you baffled by this?
Because as often as not, its a hoax or a scam. Those who jump skivvy to throw their money at it usually get burned: See Facebook.
-=Geoskd
The general public doesn't give fuck all about the law or the attitude of large media publishers. They know that free is a damn good price for something that they use to have to pay for and that fact alone will be what continues this trend.
The content industries opened the door to a century ago when they didn't fight to prevent broadcasters from using advertising to pay for free transmissions. The end result is nearly a century of the general public believing that they should be able to turn on their TV / Radio / Whatever and get content for free. An entire generation is locked in against the content owners, and the irony is that their impending doom is driven by the very business model that helped make them all very wealthy.
-=Geoskd
Under president Romney we will nuke your country for such crimes!
I live in the USA... Go nuts.
-=Geoskd
There is nothing in that statement that implies prejudicing the jury, only an attorneys opinion of the quality and force of the evidence presented. In all truth, it was a stab at judge Koh. It looks like he wants to get her as riled up as possible. It would be a master strategy, as any emotional response she gives, will essentially hand the whole thing to an appeals court faster than you can say conflict-of-interest.
What's the conflict? I think you're confusing "bias" with "conflict".
Did you see what I did there? I never said there was any kind of conflict of interest, but somehow you came away with the impression that I did (which is why I included the original statement for reference). I made no false statements, nor did I Libel anyone, but to the general public it looks like I did in fact say that she was behaving unethically. That is exactly the same maneuver Quinn is using against Koh, and she is falling all over herself in rising to the bait. Quinn is damn good at what he does, and she has badly underestimated him, and badly overestimated herself. She's in over her head, and needs to get out of the pool before she drowns.
-=Geoskd
I think just about any bookee will give long odds on Samsungs evidence remaining excluded on appeal, and if it is allowed on appeal, it is essentially an admission that Koh shouldn't have excluded... They weren't so late as to justify exclusion, there is plenty of precedent for evidence being introduced later than this and being allowed.
In any event, in a year or so, we can have a look back and have our answer, and you will be able to look back at your posting history and see that I was right.
-=Geoskd
I don't know if Samsung is doing to push her buttons. As a judge, she has ruled on this particular subject numerous times and it has been appealed. Samsung's lawyers appear to be doing an end-around her orders. While technically she never ruled that Samsung couldn't release the information, they are getting close to breaking the spirit of her rulings. Most judges would not be happy.
You've missed a few important details: She specifically ordered the court documents unsealed That means that by HER orders, the very documents Samsung released are PUBLIC. The spirit of her rulings is being upheld by Samsung, and their lead counsel. She is mad because in the court of public opinion she is going to be crucified (and rightly so) With all her mis-steps and outright blunders, many people will be questioning her fitness to serve. Her only way out now is recuse herself because of her bias and declare a mistrial (start over). God forbid one of these judges should admit their mistakes and pony up. They're human, they make mistakes, but as my father always told me, its not whether you make mistakes that demonstrates your greatness, its how you handle your mistakes. Stepping aside is the only way for her to save any face, and if there were any real justice, it would be the only way to save her job.
-=Geoskd
I think that argument goes out the window when Samsung specifically says the whole point is to influence the jury:
The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence.
There is nothing in that statement that implies prejudicing the jury, only an attorneys opinion of the quality and force of the evidence presented. In all truth, it was a stab at judge Koh. It looks like he wants to get her as riled up as possible. It would be a master strategy, as any emotional response she gives, will essentially hand the whole thing to an appeals court faster than you can say conflict-of-interest. The judge has to always maintain the image of impartiality, and this Judge Koh has not only failed to maintain the image of impartiality, but is making as ass of herself by flaunting her authority (even where it doesn't exist), and by making bad calls. The evidence presented should not have been excluded, and what any party says to the press after jury selection is none of her damn business. Long story short, she should have known better, and now that the cat is out of the bag, she either recuses herself in shame, or the matter will go to appeal, and her decision is rendered meaningless anyway. She screwed up, and now shes being played for a fool.
-=Geoskd
Really, not enough vocation training? What programming languages are taught in CS departments? What operating systems are the students required to use? How many schools are not demanding that their students use MS Word? How many electrical engineers are taught to use Matlab (and don't even try to claim that it is the best language for DSP)?
MS Word is not a vocational skill, it is a basic prerequisite for modern life, much like long hand was 100 years ago. I'm talking about things like using Matlab, Autocad, VHDL, HTML, etc... You don't need to know how transport protocols work to write a web app. I guess the point I'm getting at is that for 90+% of the jobs out there (including a surprising number of white collar jobs), you don't need anything approaching a college education for. We train our students from the womb that they have to go to college to get a high paying job, when the irony is that they don't need to go to college to be able to do the high paying job, They only need the degree to get the job. This is why our country needs a vocational track program similar to what is offered in Germany.
Sure, until something happens that you and the other people in your profession didn't learn a formula for:
Most people with a little experience under their belt can figure out what to do, and more importantly, anyone with an intermediate understanding of search techniques can find out how to get the job done. If its something that no one has done before, then you're going to hire a research staff anyway, and you'll want a PHD to do the heavy lifting. Ask yourself, how often do you use Calculus in your job? What about diff eq? how about something more basic like trig? If you're like 99% of Americans the answer to that question is "never". For those that do, most of them never use anything beyond simple algebra and trig. A good example of the principle of what i'm talking about is my own Hobbies. I don't know the first thing about internal combustion engines. I don't know any chemistry,. My knowledge of materials science extends to know that it is a science, and that's where my knowledge stops, but that doesn't stop me from working on my classic car. When I want to fiddle, I go to the web and search for relevant topics, like changing the roller cams, or fixing a broken temp sensor. I don't need any theoretical grounding to be reasonably successful, and neither does a mechanic. Even the guy who designs most of the car doesn't need any theoretical knowledge, just autocad, and some examples to work from. 99% of the job is just fitting a bunch of parts together. Same goes for building a house. You just follow the building codes and you're fine. If you want something too far out of the ordinary, you will hire an architect to do the design, but that doesn't mean that all carpenters and plumbers need to be capable of architectural design, and the world needs a lot more plumbers, electricians, and carpenters than it does architects.
-=Geoskd