What in the fuck are the regulators even REGULATING?
The new theory on regulation (since approximately the 80s) is that it's bad, and thanks in large part to an economist and a Federal judge (both named Posner) the new theory is that there is no such thing as monopoly abuse -- so there's no need to regulate monopolies, because a monopoly that abuses its position will always have a competitor spring up and underprice them.
what they are really doing is carving up the market with Charter so that each won't need to compete with the other. They'll each stay in their own little geographic area and everyone is happy. (Where "everyone" means the cable companies, of course. Not the customers who will see higher and higher bills with little to no competition.)
When was there ever competition? In the vast majority of service areas, cable (like telephone) is a monopoly with exclusive access to end-users granted by the local governmental authorities.
Years back, the locals kept the worst of the monopoly abuses under a lid by regulating the cable outfits. When cable started serving up networking, the FCC took over and essentially deregulated the business, which is why the old ISP business is dead -- it's telco or cable today, or do without.
I really don't see why the networks themselves were not pushing for this. With massive amounts of "common" content things like netflix can really offload top level traffic by peering.
Well, to begin with both cable and phone companies would (much) rather you paid them for video service separately.
Then there's the fact that P2P takes them out of the position of selling access to you while removing their regulatory fig leaf of citing (inflated) numbers for adding bandwidth.
Ah, yes. Issue number 3959. Originally filed April 10, 2002. More than twelve years ago. In that time it has remained in the top-voted issue list year-in and year-out. Others come and go, but 3959 keeps on pissing off users. At last look, there are about ten duplicates requests on file.
Every few years some developer wanders by and tells the people following it that nobody needs outline view, or that there are tools available to do it, or whatever. Often, they close the issue. In effect, "I don't use outline mode so obviously it's not important." The mailing list heats up for a while, the developer either mumbles something about maybe the team should look into it and vanishes or else just vanishes, but the issue is either reopened or left open. I've seen at least four of those cycles so far. We're probably due for another one.
At this point, I suspect that 3959 will outlive (Open|Libre|Star)Office for the classic open-source software reason: if it doesn't scratch a developer's itch, it ain't happening. And apparently, developers don't outline, edit, or otherwise structure their writing or much care about the people who do.
dealing with bug/enhancement issues that have been pending for more than twelve years. Issue #3959 (notice the position in the queue?) has been either ignored or brushed off as unimportant since April of 2002, despite seniority and votes in the issues list.
Classic case of writers telling programmers "this is a must-have function" and programmers responding with "I don't use it so neither do you."
I haven't seen the application yet, but I'd be quite surprised if it contains enough information to actually detect cameras -- given, after all, that a camera doesn't necessarily look like anything in particular, nor emit a signal declaring "I am a camera."
More likely, Gates et al are doing the old trick of patenting the idea of detecting a camera and then planning to fill in the blanks as the technology improves. Jerry Lemelson was the grand master of this trick and made billions (yes, with a "B") with it. On numerous occasions he actually sued, and prevailed, against the people who actually invented the technology that he incorporated in revised patent applications because his application predated their invention.
I've been timing my lights for decades. When you arrive at that "next green light" you'll find that the cars that left the last green light with you are already parked there ahead of you, so you have to stop anyway while they jackrabbit out to beat everyone to the next red light.
Wouldn't it be better to put the connectivity into the light fixture, especially if it has more than one bulb?
If we work really, really hard at it and spend enough money on the electronics in each bulb, we can give you that by making them imitate a 19th century lamp.
Greenspan is right that taking the lid off of immigration will drive the top of the wage scale down, greatly reducing wage inequality.
Gates is right that there's one "job" that won't be automated: ownership.
I confess that I am assuming that Greenspan (who was never a dummy) is talking about wage, rather than income inequality. Otherwise I'm not sure how he expects a rise in immigration to do anything but accelerate the shift of income from wages to rents.
For every family that takes unvaccinated kids to France and brings them back sick
Is there something particularly disgusting about France that I am unaware of?
A particularly low vaccination rate, mostly. Along with Switzerland, it seems that most of the USA's trip-to-X-and-came-back-with-measles cases seem to be from France.
Question, if the vax works so well, why then are the vaxxed so worried about the few who dont.
Short answer: because measles is a human-only disease like smallpox and polio. We could eliminate it. In which case, the we'd have as many adverse outcomes from measles and its vaccine as we do now from smallpox and its vaccine: zero.
There are other reasons, but IMHO that's good enough. Except, perhaps, for the virus-rights movement.
Its sad, but if the kids of parents who only think on a base emotional level die then its clearing out the human gene pool.
For every family that takes unvaccinated kids to France and brings them back sick, there are scores more who are in the pediatrician's waiting room, in pulic places, etc. with a kid too young to be vaccinated. Not to mention the small percentage for whom the vaccine just doesn't work.
Unless you're advocating keeping babies and others locked up and leaving public places to the shambling hordes of carriers, perhaps?
And if they had gone with the most powerful available boxer, it would still be significantly under-powered compared to the original. Remember, the engines in the original engines were designed by Bugatti.
Using 1930s technology -- downdraft carbs and all. (Don't try fling them inverted!)
Since they weren't going to match the original power anyway, they chose inexpensive.
Street-legal Boxers put out over 300 BHP. Take liberties that are only legal for off-road use and they're a lot closer to the Bugatti 450 than to the replica's 200. Even with less weight. Don't underrate the value of fuel injection, modern alloys (esp. in the turbochargers) and electronic engine controls. And they're relatively inexpensive, even tricked out.
The problem is that they needed an aviation engine.
Plenty of "experimental" planes use turbocharged Subaru Boxers. Compact, 2.5 liter, not hard to get more than factory power out of them. Especially with thin, cold air and minimal exhaust modifications.
Drag is proportional to dynamic pressure, which is in turn proportional to the square of velocity.
For incompressible flow, anyway. When you're sneaking up on Mach 0.8, though, wave drag is a serious part of the equation and the power curve gets even steeper.
It depends on where the mass is. Mass ahead of the center of lift does increase stability. Mass behind the center of lift causes instability (not hard to figure this out if you give it some thought.)
You can try it yourself if you like: Make a paper airplane. Fly it, observe how stable it is. Put a penny in the nose, repeat. Move the penny to the rear, repeat. If the results are too extreme with the penny all the way forward or back, adjust it in between.
That's why my comment depended on the location of the engines: they're way back in the plane. That's dangerously close to the center of lift, which might be OK for a racer but would make long flights (with fuel mass changing, never mind munitions!) really dicey.
Slashdot Mirror
... will be only three times that of the same storage in disks.
What in the fuck are the regulators even REGULATING?
The new theory on regulation (since approximately the 80s) is that it's bad, and thanks in large part to an economist and a Federal judge (both named Posner) the new theory is that there is no such thing as monopoly abuse -- so there's no need to regulate monopolies, because a monopoly that abuses its position will always have a competitor spring up and underprice them.
what they are really doing is carving up the market with Charter so that each won't need to compete with the other. They'll each stay in their own little geographic area and everyone is happy. (Where "everyone" means the cable companies, of course. Not the customers who will see higher and higher bills with little to no competition.)
When was there ever competition? In the vast majority of service areas, cable (like telephone) is a monopoly with exclusive access to end-users granted by the local governmental authorities.
Years back, the locals kept the worst of the monopoly abuses under a lid by regulating the cable outfits. When cable started serving up networking, the FCC took over and essentially deregulated the business, which is why the old ISP business is dead -- it's telco or cable today, or do without.
I really don't see why the networks themselves were not pushing for this. With massive amounts of "common" content things like netflix can really offload top level traffic by peering.
Well, to begin with both cable and phone companies would (much) rather you paid them for video service separately.
Then there's the fact that P2P takes them out of the position of selling access to you while removing their regulatory fig leaf of citing (inflated) numbers for adding bandwidth.
And that's just the first two.
Sorry -- I wrote that for the following comment (WRT XMind) and then posted it here.
Does it let you restructure an existing document?
Ah, yes. Issue number 3959. Originally filed April 10, 2002. More than twelve years ago. In that time it has remained in the top-voted issue list year-in and year-out. Others come and go, but 3959 keeps on pissing off users. At last look, there are about ten duplicates requests on file.
Every few years some developer wanders by and tells the people following it that nobody needs outline view, or that there are tools available to do it, or whatever. Often, they close the issue. In effect, "I don't use outline mode so obviously it's not important." The mailing list heats up for a while, the developer either mumbles something about maybe the team should look into it and vanishes or else just vanishes, but the issue is either reopened or left open. I've seen at least four of those cycles so far. We're probably due for another one.
At this point, I suspect that 3959 will outlive (Open|Libre|Star)Office for the classic open-source software reason: if it doesn't scratch a developer's itch, it ain't happening. And apparently, developers don't outline, edit, or otherwise structure their writing or much care about the people who do.
dealing with bug/enhancement issues that have been pending for more than twelve years. Issue #3959 (notice the position in the queue?) has been either ignored or brushed off as unimportant since April of 2002, despite seniority and votes in the issues list.
Classic case of writers telling programmers "this is a must-have function" and programmers responding with "I don't use it so neither do you."
I haven't seen the application yet, but I'd be quite surprised if it contains enough information to actually detect cameras -- given, after all, that a camera doesn't necessarily look like anything in particular, nor emit a signal declaring "I am a camera."
More likely, Gates et al are doing the old trick of patenting the idea of detecting a camera and then planning to fill in the blanks as the technology improves. Jerry Lemelson was the grand master of this trick and made billions (yes, with a "B") with it. On numerous occasions he actually sued, and prevailed, against the people who actually invented the technology that he incorporated in revised patent applications because his application predated their invention.
correlate to the number of pirates?
Those with lead feet would be accelerating hard, then waiting at the lights as you
... arrive in queue behind them.
I've been timing my lights for decades. When you arrive at that "next green light" you'll find that the cars that left the last green light with you are already parked there ahead of you, so you have to stop anyway while they jackrabbit out to beat everyone to the next red light.
Wouldn't it be better to put the connectivity into the light fixture, especially if it has more than one bulb?
If we work really, really hard at it and spend enough money on the electronics in each bulb, we can give you that by making them imitate a 19th century lamp.
Greenspan is right that taking the lid off of immigration will drive the top of the wage scale down, greatly reducing wage inequality.
Gates is right that there's one "job" that won't be automated: ownership.
I confess that I am assuming that Greenspan (who was never a dummy) is talking about wage, rather than income inequality. Otherwise I'm not sure how he expects a rise in immigration to do anything but accelerate the shift of income from wages to rents.
For every family that takes unvaccinated kids to France and brings them back sick
Is there something particularly disgusting about France that I am unaware of?
A particularly low vaccination rate, mostly. Along with Switzerland, it seems that most of the USA's trip-to-X-and-came-back-with-measles cases seem to be from France.
You can't reason someone out of a belief that they didn't reason themselves into.
Question, if the vax works so well, why then are the vaxxed so worried about the few who dont.
Short answer: because measles is a human-only disease like smallpox and polio. We could eliminate it. In which case, the we'd have as many adverse outcomes from measles and its vaccine as we do now from smallpox and its vaccine: zero.
There are other reasons, but IMHO that's good enough. Except, perhaps, for the virus-rights movement.
ALL the weak get culled, not just the dumb ones.
Most particularly, the very young. Possibly not a trait we want to eliminate from the population.
Its sad, but if the kids of parents who only think on a base emotional level die then its clearing out the human gene pool.
For every family that takes unvaccinated kids to France and brings them back sick, there are scores more who are in the pediatrician's waiting room, in pulic places, etc. with a kid too young to be vaccinated. Not to mention the small percentage for whom the vaccine just doesn't work.
Unless you're advocating keeping babies and others locked up and leaving public places to the shambling hordes of carriers, perhaps?
Maybe this is just the half-time of the shots, and it's time to refresh? I.e. "2014, third dose recommended"
If that were the case, you'd be seeing the new cases in people over the age of 30. Instead it's pretty much all kids.
Let me guess -- it's all Silverlight, right?
And if they had gone with the most powerful available boxer, it would still be significantly under-powered compared to the original. Remember, the engines in the original engines were designed by Bugatti.
Using 1930s technology -- downdraft carbs and all. (Don't try fling them inverted!)
Since they weren't going to match the original power anyway, they chose inexpensive.
Street-legal Boxers put out over 300 BHP. Take liberties that are only legal for off-road use and they're a lot closer to the Bugatti 450 than to the replica's 200. Even with less weight. Don't underrate the value of fuel injection, modern alloys (esp. in the turbochargers) and electronic engine controls. And they're relatively inexpensive, even tricked out.
The problem is that they needed an aviation engine.
Plenty of "experimental" planes use turbocharged Subaru Boxers. Compact, 2.5 liter, not hard to get more than factory power out of them. Especially with thin, cold air and minimal exhaust modifications.
Drag is proportional to dynamic pressure, which is in turn proportional to the square of velocity.
For incompressible flow, anyway. When you're sneaking up on Mach 0.8, though, wave drag is a serious part of the equation and the power curve gets even steeper.
It depends on where the mass is. Mass ahead of the center of lift does increase stability. Mass behind the center of lift causes instability (not hard to figure this out if you give it some thought.)
You can try it yourself if you like: Make a paper airplane. Fly it, observe how stable it is. Put a penny in the nose, repeat. Move the penny to the rear, repeat. If the results are too extreme with the penny all the way forward or back, adjust it in between.
That's why my comment depended on the location of the engines: they're way back in the plane. That's dangerously close to the center of lift, which might be OK for a racer but would make long flights (with fuel mass changing, never mind munitions!) really dicey.