And this includes building systems in poorly covered areas where private capital doesn't see the ROI to justify the service.
Why a half-assed solution? Either you are okay with government intervention and you nationalize everything, or you let the "invisible hand of the free market" coming up with a solution.
Having the government taking care only of poorly covered areas ends up costing more to the tax-payer, since it cannot use profits from high-ROI areas to subsidize other places. And it also means that users in dense areas pay twice: once for themselves through their contract with telecom companies, and once for people in less-dense areas through taxes.
The planet is warming. Yep. has been for a while now. CO2 is increasing due to people. Yep, probably not a good idea, but negative feedback cycles clearly dominate - a look into atmospheric history shows that clearly
How can there be warming if negative feedback dominates?
Macron doesn't strike me as the brightest bulb, but if the Democrats had put up anybody like him, they would likely have won in the US as well.
Not the brightest bulb? The guy graduated from two of the most prestigious universities in France, has worked in several high profile positions both in the government and in the private sector, created is own political movement, and got elected president at 39. I don't know what you need.
Besides, if you speak French, you may want to look at his interviews on mediapart (paywalled). The guy is reactive, has well-thought ideas on complex issues, and explains them clearly. But yeah, you have to go beyond soundbites.
I have lived and worked in different countries with (mainly) public healthcare (Germany, France, Japan), and I cannot say that I felt that healthcare was of lower quality than in the US. But it was cheaper, and simpler.
He's just restoring half of the cuts that Obama made to defense spending.
Cuts that were made as the country was going out of Iraq and Afghanistan, so one could argue that it was not actually a "cut" in the military power of America. Shall I also remind you that Trump promised to make our allies pay to finance our military? I don't see this happening
Plus, that's not answering the concerns of reducing the deficit.
I know every budget has to be criticized by 'the opposing party' with a list of all the wonderful things that are going to be cut, but you all DO realize that the US government is nearly $19 TRILLION in debt - or more than $50k per person in the country?
Every single program that we're paying for, essentially we're living off credit cards. We are the wealthiest nation in human history, and we still cannot afford all the crap we want.
At some point, someone has to be the grownup in the room and say "you know, that would be really nice, but we simply can't afford it".
I would agree with you if the Trump government was actually proposing to reduce the budget, but that is not the case. The cuts in those agencies will mostly be used to fund a $54B increase in defense spending (which, in 2015, already accounted for more than half of the federal discretionary spending.
You can read the full WP article for more details...The link is in the summary
Yes, a tech node is a process size. That's why I started with "at a given technology node". I agree that if you shrink the dimensions of your transistor, the critical defect size also becomes smaller, and you get potentially more defect per die. And if you make the die bigger, you get more defects, hence the decrease in yield.
I was not cherry picking. You were opposing races, and I was just pointing out that most crimes (even the most hideous) are not race-related. Or trying to, at least.
I am not sure that I understand what you mean by "critical flaw size", and I am not sure what would be the relation with die size. A defect is a defect. Bigger dies don't have more redundancy, they have more functions.
If you are interested in yield model, this paper is a good read.
Or you can just check the influence of die size on yield in this basic yield simulator
No, nobody should starve to death, or left without healthcare, or without drinking water, or not given the chance to get quality education at an affordable price.
Maybe we should push for things like Universal Basic Income, Single Payer Healthcare System, Free Education, and stop privatizing utilities?
Actually, the french postal service has a history of innovation (e.g. le Minitel), and has handled very cleverly the changes brought by internet (less mail, more packages): they are now the #2 package delivery provider in Europe.
Sending drones instead of people to remote areas is a good idea: there are fewer regulations than in the cities, and it is probably more profitable too than sending people.
The Trump administration will remove all those regulations that are BAD for business. Recycling regulations are BAD for the American economy. We can't compete with CHINA with this situation. Luckily, Trump has assembled the right team to bring business ethics into the EPA, and get rid of the tree-hugger communist snowflake morals. America will be great again (as long as you don't happen to leave close to a toxic landfill, but none of Trump's billionaire friends do).
No, China censors reports of actual events if they are not compatible with the Party line. Facebook proposes to flag out unverified stories that try to pass as news.
You may argue that it is a violation of one's right to Free Speech, and that may be true but from a moral standpoint it is just plain wrong to put true stories and fake news on the same level.
If you like comparison with "communist" countries, I don't know if you had a look at Breitbart recently. It is starting to look like what Pravda was under Brezhnev: a propaganda tool for the power in place (or soon in place, since Trump is not president yet)./p?
I challenge anyone to come up with reasons to keep cash that outweigh the enormous benefits of getting rid of it. Imagine the worldwide suffering because of crime, from drug dealing to bicycle theft. Crime that requires cash. The Swedish krona is a small currency, used only in Sweden. This is the ideal place to start the biggest crime-preventing scheme ever. We could and should be the first cashless society in the world.—Björn Ulvaeus
It seems that Korea may beat Sweden to being the first cashless society.
You are legally permitted in Canada to criticize anyone and everyone. You are just not allowed to do it in any way that incites hatred or promotes genocide.
Under section 318 of the Criminal Code it is illegal to promote genocide. Under section 319, it is illegal to publicly incite hatred against people based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation, except where the statements made are true or are made in good faith
In addition to Canada, most European countries have similar laws, i have lived there and I don't think it limits one's abilities to express one's opinions if one has any respect for the historical truth so I would be interested to know where you think the problem is with this law.
By the way, some conservatives consider politifact.com and snopes.com to be left-leaning. Evidence of this is thin, or at least doesn't show significant bias in my inspections. (I see errors in ranking judgement more than bias.)
However, assuming it is left-leaning, where is the right's alternative?
If the fact-checking sites report 38% of fake-stories for the alt-right and only 19% for the alt-left, then it is in the interest of conservative politicians to declare those sites as left-wing: the conservative electorate will then look at them with distrust, will stop visiting them and will not be exposed to opinions that contradict their opinion.
The right alternative to fact-checking is no fact-checking.
It is very easy to manipulate polls in order to get results with the desired bias, so the results are meaningless if we don't know exactly the details of the survey.
For instance, the question: "Do you understand that when using Autopilot, the driver is expected to maintain control of the vehicle at all times?" will wield much different results than the question: "When using Autopilot, how often do you remove your hands from the driving wheel?"
Slashdot Mirror
And this includes building systems in poorly covered areas where private capital doesn't see the ROI to justify the service.
Why a half-assed solution? Either you are okay with government intervention and you nationalize everything, or you let the "invisible hand of the free market" coming up with a solution.
Having the government taking care only of poorly covered areas ends up costing more to the tax-payer, since it cannot use profits from high-ROI areas to subsidize other places. And it also means that users in dense areas pay twice: once for themselves through their contract with telecom companies, and once for people in less-dense areas through taxes.
The planet is warming. Yep. has been for a while now. CO2 is increasing due to people. Yep, probably not a good idea, but negative feedback cycles clearly dominate - a look into atmospheric history shows that clearly
How can there be warming if negative feedback dominates?
For the entire 8 years of Obama's administration "Merry Christmas" was in the banned list.
That's strange... Obama has said Merry Christmas in many occasions. I guess that the only thing that's in the "banned list" of Trump supporters is critical thinking.
Yet, I cannot help thinking about the wired article about power outages in Ukraine.
Macron doesn't strike me as the brightest bulb, but if the Democrats had put up anybody like him, they would likely have won in the US as well.
Not the brightest bulb? The guy graduated from two of the most prestigious universities in France, has worked in several high profile positions both in the government and in the private sector, created is own political movement, and got elected president at 39. I don't know what you need.
Besides, if you speak French, you may want to look at his interviews on mediapart (paywalled). The guy is reactive, has well-thought ideas on complex issues, and explains them clearly. But yeah, you have to go beyond soundbites.
If only we could get this kind of competitive pressure to occur in the healthcare market!
Competition (or lack thereof) is not the issue. Countries where healthcare is publicly funded pay less for healthcare.
I have lived and worked in different countries with (mainly) public healthcare (Germany, France, Japan), and I cannot say that I felt that healthcare was of lower quality than in the US. But it was cheaper, and simpler.
He's just restoring half of the cuts that Obama made to defense spending.
Cuts that were made as the country was going out of Iraq and Afghanistan, so one could argue that it was not actually a "cut" in the military power of America. Shall I also remind you that Trump promised to make our allies pay to finance our military? I don't see this happening
Plus, that's not answering the concerns of reducing the deficit.
I know every budget has to be criticized by 'the opposing party' with a list of all the wonderful things that are going to be cut, but you all DO realize that the US government is nearly $19 TRILLION in debt - or more than $50k per person in the country?
Every single program that we're paying for, essentially we're living off credit cards. We are the wealthiest nation in human history, and we still cannot afford all the crap we want.
At some point, someone has to be the grownup in the room and say "you know, that would be really nice, but we simply can't afford it".
I would agree with you if the Trump government was actually proposing to reduce the budget, but that is not the case. The cuts in those agencies will mostly be used to fund a $54B increase in defense spending (which, in 2015, already accounted for more than half of the federal discretionary spending.
You can read the full WP article for more details...The link is in the summary
Here is the original letter from the DOJ.
It includes the names of the two "aggrieved individuals", for those interested.
Yes, a tech node is a process size. That's why I started with "at a given technology node". I agree that if you shrink the dimensions of your transistor, the critical defect size also becomes smaller, and you get potentially more defect per die. And if you make the die bigger, you get more defects, hence the decrease in yield.
I was not cherry picking. You were opposing races, and I was just pointing out that most crimes (even the most hideous) are not race-related. Or trying to, at least.
Having an agenda would be creating an agency to report crimes made by illegal immigrants to be able to communicate on those, although proportionally more crimes of the same nature would be committed by legal immigrants or citizens. But nobody would do that, would they?
I am not sure that I understand what you mean by "critical flaw size", and I am not sure what would be the relation with die size. A defect is a defect. Bigger dies don't have more redundancy, they have more functions.
If you are interested in yield model, this paper is a good read.
Or you can just check the influence of die size on yield in this basic yield simulator
And FYI, I work in the semiconductor industry.
Yields of working units are going down significantly as the die shrinks, and it's taking a lot longer to figure out how to bring yields back up.
Actually no, the yield is higher for smaller die sizes at a given technology, since the likelihood of having a defect on your die is lower.
On the other hand, time-to-ramp is longer for advanced tech nodes, although some companies like TSMC have shown impressive numbers.
White far-right dude kills a bunch of white children in Norway because they were going to a summer camp organized by the Labour Party.
White dude shoots journalists because he had been fired by the network
.
So yeah, there are dicks everywhere, and handing them guns is not the safest thing to do...
No, nobody should starve to death, or left without healthcare, or without drinking water, or not given the chance to get quality education at an affordable price.
Maybe we should push for things like Universal Basic Income, Single Payer Healthcare System, Free Education, and stop privatizing utilities?
Actually, the french postal service has a history of innovation (e.g. le Minitel), and has handled very cleverly the changes brought by internet (less mail, more packages): they are now the #2 package delivery provider in Europe.
Sending drones instead of people to remote areas is a good idea: there are fewer regulations than in the cities, and it is probably more profitable too than sending people.
The Trump administration will remove all those regulations that are BAD for business. Recycling regulations are BAD for the American economy. We can't compete with CHINA with this situation. Luckily, Trump has assembled the right team to bring business ethics into the EPA, and get rid of the tree-hugger communist snowflake morals. America will be great again (as long as you don't happen to leave close to a toxic landfill, but none of Trump's billionaire friends do).
No, China censors reports of actual events if they are not compatible with the Party line. Facebook proposes to flag out unverified stories that try to pass as news.
You may argue that it is a violation of one's right to Free Speech, and that may be true but from a moral standpoint it is just plain wrong to put true stories and fake news on the same level.
If you like comparison with "communist" countries, I don't know if you had a look at Breitbart recently. It is starting to look like what Pravda was under Brezhnev: a propaganda tool for the power in place (or soon in place, since Trump is not president yet)./p?
Will the Nikola hydrogen charging stations be compatible with the Toyota Mirai?
There could be some pretty strong synergies there.
To update my shower curtain!
You are forgetting criminals. If there is no cash, and every transaction is traced, it becomes much more difficult to run a criminal activity.
As a famous Swede said:
I challenge anyone to come up with reasons to keep cash that outweigh the enormous benefits of getting rid of it. Imagine the worldwide suffering because of crime, from drug dealing to bicycle theft. Crime that requires cash. The Swedish krona is a small currency, used only in Sweden. This is the ideal place to start the biggest crime-preventing scheme ever. We could and should be the first cashless society in the world.—Björn Ulvaeus
It seems that Korea may beat Sweden to being the first cashless society.
You are legally permitted in Canada to criticize anyone and everyone. You are just not allowed to do it in any way that incites hatred or promotes genocide.
According to Wikipedia (emphasis is mine):
Under section 318 of the Criminal Code it is illegal to promote genocide. Under section 319, it is illegal to publicly incite hatred against people based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation, except where the statements made are true or are made in good faith
In addition to Canada, most European countries have similar laws, i have lived there and I don't think it limits one's abilities to express one's opinions if one has any respect for the historical truth so I would be interested to know where you think the problem is with this law.
50 recent searches for political terms on Google surfaced more liberal-leaning webpages than conservative ones, as rated by a panel of four people.
In other words, four people have a conservative bias. :)
By the way, some conservatives consider politifact.com and snopes.com to be left-leaning. Evidence of this is thin, or at least doesn't show significant bias in my inspections. (I see errors in ranking judgement more than bias.)
However, assuming it is left-leaning, where is the right's alternative?
If the fact-checking sites report 38% of fake-stories for the alt-right and only 19% for the alt-left, then it is in the interest of conservative politicians to declare those sites as left-wing: the conservative electorate will then look at them with distrust, will stop visiting them and will not be exposed to opinions that contradict their opinion.
The right alternative to fact-checking is no fact-checking.
It is very easy to manipulate polls in order to get results with the desired bias, so the results are meaningless if we don't know exactly the details of the survey.
For instance, the question: "Do you understand that when using Autopilot, the driver is expected to maintain control of the vehicle at all times?" will wield much different results than the question: "When using Autopilot, how often do you remove your hands from the driving wheel?"