Exactly. If the "GOP" wanted to harm Sony they wouldn't be putting films on bittorrent, they'd seed their accounting data,particularly the real one, not the fake one they show all the people they owe royalties.
This should be a given, this is how the body makes proteins. The "recipe" is stored in the DNA, the transcriber runs along the DNA making a copy and then it folds into the protein when the copy is complete. A small mistake in the transcription and it doesn't fold into the right protein or doesn't fold at all. This is why protein research is so hard right now, they don't fully understand what governs how the proteins fold.
This research may give them a leg up on understanding that, very cool that they figured out some of the rules.
I'd like to see good electronic FOSS options, but the I just don't trust total electronic voting. My state uses the touch screens to print paper ballots that are human readable and machine scan-able. The paper trail provides the good backup evidence you need. I just don't trust an entirely electronic system.
Not if you fill that space up. The excess capacity used for wear leveling only works if there is non reported space used for such or you don't fill the drive all the way up. The minute you fill the drive you are using the flash to it's extent. And putting things like page files on them will increase the wear rate significantly. A smart installation puts the page file/swap space on a magnetic disk and uses the SSD for everything else that isn't doing caching where there are heavy writes.
Until they can solve the wearing problem that gets worse with each die shrink of NAND they will never reach the wear capacity or costs of spinning rust.
Google it. Scoop and run has much higher survival rates. Paramedics don't have the tools, the training or the ability to do the things a doctor can do in an ER. The only way for a stabilize and transport system to work better would be to have multiple physicians riding around in ambulances that have all the facilities and equipment that an ER room does. The scoop and run system on the other hand will get a patient to an ER with the maximum amount of time for the ER to deliver care.
There is conclusive research that says if the patient is stabilized within an hour the survival odds go way up and the shorter the arrival time the higher the survival rate. The quicker you can get them to the ER you give the ER more time within that window to deliver real lifesaving help. For example. a patient may need to be placed on direct life support, where machines are keeping the body alive in the absence of autonomic support. Those services are not available even on advanced ambulances. In fact there are many procedures and drugs that ER's aren't allowed to handle or use. Even the use of a presser to increase blood pressure can't be given by the EMT's because improper use can kill.
This is exactly the reason people on the left complained about the ACA. The insurance companies have absolutely no incentive to negotiate low prices, they are and always have been payed a percentage of the costs. The higher the costs the more money that percentage translates too. Private insurance is a boondoggle in this country. We should expand the single payer medicare system to cover everyone and just raise the tax rate (and eliminate the high income cap).
It's about bloody time that people stop pretending medical services are a free market. They are anything but free. No one having surgery or medical services of any kind is price shopping. Not even the bloody insurance companies. And no one in the medical services business is trying to reduce costs. It's a system that's totally absent of a free and competitive market. What it is a market where some people make a LOT of money and those people have connections at the top which protect that profit at any cost.
Carl Sagan talked about it. Look at a planet like Titan. It's got oceans of hydrocarbons. It's far enough from the sun and cold enough to have not developed life, but we can't rule it out. There is simply so many organic molecules there that any life that did exist would be overwhelmed with food.
But more importantly, in both cosmos version they discuss this very point, even if life is a 1 in a billion or 1 in a trillion chance there are still going to be literally billions of life bearing planets out there because of the shear size of the universe. Humans have very difficult time with the size of numbers involved, even physicists do, we just have no real life experience with numbers that big. The universe is so big we've only roughly mapped about 30% of what we can see and we can't even see that far. Look at the Hubble deep field shot and ask yourself how many galaxies you can see, and that was shot on a a piece of sky that's miniscule from earths surface.
It has nothing to do with race you jackass. The criminal acceptance behavior you attribute to race is attributable to economic status, as in white people at the same poverty level do the same god damned stuff. Economic status and chance for advancement is the decider of how people view the law. Someone that has nothing, and has knowledge that they will never have anything will view society as the problem and the police as enforcers of their economic slavery. This is the danger in class stratification and why ignoring all the poverty is a bad fucking idea. Trickle down economic theory is heavily responsible for this rather major attitude problem with law enforcement among the lowest economic class.
And if Google even hesitates or tries to leverage search in a way consumers don't like those very competitors will eat them alive so quickly it would make your head spin.
If everyone on the planet used duck-duck-go tomorrow and for the rest of the month Google would be in very serious trouble.
If you think the barrier to entry in the search market is low, you should have a talk with Yahoo or MS, both of which have spent a billion or three on what you call "almost nothing". Either they're all idiots, or you're missing something.
The only barrier to entry is a good search engine that turns out results people want. It's not that hard, but it's far to easy to want to screw up those results to boost revenue, something yahoo was notorious for. Microsoft's biggest expenses related to search were advertising (such as buying Yahoo's search business) and trying to convince people they could be trusted, so far they've mostly failed at both. Even at that Bing is still not as good at returning results as Google is. Maybe that's because Google's entire company is devoted to search and Yahoo and Microsoft are devoted to other things with search being a second class citizen in the company.
But actually a good thing. Of course you'll deny that if you drank too much of the neo-conservative cool-aid, but to any thinking person it's quite clear that the total dominance of a few global superplayers is not beneficial to the market or the people.
You might like putting people in jars but I don't, please don't attempt to classify my political leanings by putting me in a jar, particularly one I despise. The problem with your argument is that the total dominance of Google as you claim could be replaced overnight by people typing a different URL in the bar. There is no barrier to entry other than excellence in search. What I see in search is a very functional and competitive market place. Google messes up once and the lions at their door will eat their market-share in a matter of months. The total lack of barrier's to entry, the ease with which consumers can switch and the fact that prices are falling indicates a healthy free-market, even if one of the players is dominant. All regulations will do in a situation like this is break the functioning market. I'm all for regulating markets, just not doing it to ones that are functioning relatively freely.
European regulations should be focusing on the edges of the market where Google is trying to manipulate things, such as forcing them to randomize product listing instead of always listing their own first. Or making sure they don't turn their Android system into a vehicle to mobile control (but by all reports Europe has a healthier mobile competition than the US with a functional player in Microsoft). Or even leveraging their android wear or android car to gain control of other markets. Again though the touch should be light, by all accounts these markets are free and functional. Overly heavy regulation is as damaging as no regulation at all.
Yea I don't like it either but it's still not a impediment to alternative businesses IMO. Google might control advertising on Google and affiliated sites but they hardly control all advertising. And the most effective advertising is still not on the web, it's local.
The reason Google dominates these other markets is often their solution is better, easier to use and charges less than competitors. In all their years of dominance they've done one thing continually and that's to drive prices down, not up. As an example Google did massive damage to Amazon's earnings by overnight dropping hosting costs by 90%.
I guess my main gripe is that there has been no consumer hostile actions by Google (other than privacy). They've not raised prices, they don't refuse competitors advertisements. If they aren't hurting consumers than regulation should be light up until they do. For me it boils down to one simple fact, it's just not difficult for someone to type an alternative URL into a browser. There is nothing at all forcing consumers to Google, if anything they make it easier to leave their ecosystem than their competitors do.
Kept on a leash. Lets be honest here, the ONLY thing that keeps someone from using another competing search engine is nothing at all. The only reason people use Google is because it's better, the minute they stop being better and people will quit using it. I don't consider it much of a monopoly when the barrier to entry is almost nothing.
I don't particularly like them fronting their own service but again, no one is forcing anyone to use Google. It's not even the default search engine for the predominant desktop system! This appears to be being driven by the German politicians who are bowing to their own content industry to try to force google to give them a piece of their search business.
I can't help but feel that this entire push is slimy corruption politics typical to Europe where they try to protect local businesses and harm foreign ones using dubious legal means which are often against WTO agreements.
Human emissions of CO2 are what is causing global warming. There is almost no scientific resistance to this idea. There are a bunch of people that own a lot of carbon based energy that have their fingers in their ears and a bunch of people like you that they've convinced of a story alternate to reality but there is no doubt what is causing global warming.
Off-grid is what the power companies should actually be afraid of. Unfortunately they are in denial about that little tidbit. Off-grid is already cost competitive in Hawaii (mostly because their power is $0.35kwhr).
But battery prices are falling in tandem with solar panel prices. And I suspect any law banning off-grid will quickly be squashed by the courts as unconstitutional for many reasons. But off-grid represents a death spiral and would make every asset of the power company almost worthless. That death spiral is what they should fear, because every time they make being on grid with panels harder they are going to drive someone off-grid and the more people they do drive off grid the higher the shared costs will be which will drive more people off grid starting a death spiral that ends with bankruptcy and assets that are without value.
That death spiral is what Hawaii power is starting to deal with because of their mucking about with net metering. They've begun to change their tune but it could very well be too late for them. Hopefully it will serve as a lesson for all the other power companies before they walk down the same path.
The oil companies screamed like bloody murder when they talked about shaving those 4 billion in subsidies while they were raking in record profits.
But all the other groups receive equally large subsidies. If coal power cost what it's actual costs were it would be the most expensive power in the US. (I'm including the environmental and medical costs) But even if you don't include the environmental costs coal receives massive tax credits and subsidies.
Batteries are dropping in cost and increasing in capacity at about 20% per year right now. The Tesla gigafactory is expected to bring retail prices for a 85kwh battery pack to about $6000 where it's currently about $12k. For most residential homes an 85kwh battery pack is enough storage to provide power completely for more than 2weeks at full peak usage. With a gas heated home, the winter use of said battery pack would exceed a month without a single day of sunshine. Keep in mind the only time panels don't generate electricity is during the night and when the panels are covered. Even during a major storm, without snow, panels will continue to generate power during the day, just at reduced output. During the winter as long as the panels aren't covered in snow they will continue to generate power, and if tipped up to match the angle of the sun would generate better than 80% of the peak summer power.
Solar is a game changer and the retail price drops of panels will remake power generation, it's simply a matter of time at this point.
Solar IS cost competitive. And with in a very short period, if current manufacturing price drops continue, it will be the cheapest source of power. But sure, ignore the real numbers the real reality of the situation if you wish. These numbers have been the talk of wall street for more than 2 years. Solar companies are turning down investment right now because there is too much being offered. But feel free to continue to display your ignorance. Even a fool could verify the real numbers with Google.
The only problem is the fee is rarely what you want. The only way for the fee to be fair is for the costs of grid maintenance to be separated from power purchase completely. In fact the only fair thing would be to fragment the company into a single company running the grid with only grid expenses then to split those costs evenly across all subscribers, including business.
What the power companies want is to charge a fee without justification or even providing financials to justify it. The most recent tactic they've come up with is to use subscriber revenue to install solar panels they would own. A blatant market distortion. They've even tried to make it illegal to install solar panels by mandating that only the power company can own them.
The single most important part of this is that the power companies will not play fair. Everything they request should only be evaluated with ample evidence and only allowed with valid evidence and justification for the charge.
So we've got confirmation that a VP of Uber is a sociopath with no moral compass and we're surprised? Particularly with all the bad behavior we've heard about Uber before?
That is why certain groups like fuel cells so much more than electric cars. You can still sell the nice hydrocarbon fuel stacks to get the hydrogen. And even though you generate carbon dioxide from reforming natural gas to hydrogen it is also significantly less efficient than just burning the gas directly. In fact a CNG car would probably use less gas per mile than these fuel cell cars will ultimately end up using.
Slashdot Mirror
The sniper rifle is still 30 caliber. The question you should be asking is why your agriculture department needs sniper weapons.
Exactly. If the "GOP" wanted to harm Sony they wouldn't be putting films on bittorrent, they'd seed their accounting data ,particularly the real one, not the fake one they show all the people they owe royalties.
This should be a given, this is how the body makes proteins. The "recipe" is stored in the DNA, the transcriber runs along the DNA making a copy and then it folds into the protein when the copy is complete. A small mistake in the transcription and it doesn't fold into the right protein or doesn't fold at all. This is why protein research is so hard right now, they don't fully understand what governs how the proteins fold.
This research may give them a leg up on understanding that, very cool that they figured out some of the rules.
I'd like to see good electronic FOSS options, but the I just don't trust total electronic voting. My state uses the touch screens to print paper ballots that are human readable and machine scan-able. The paper trail provides the good backup evidence you need. I just don't trust an entirely electronic system.
Not if you fill that space up. The excess capacity used for wear leveling only works if there is non reported space used for such or you don't fill the drive all the way up. The minute you fill the drive you are using the flash to it's extent. And putting things like page files on them will increase the wear rate significantly. A smart installation puts the page file/swap space on a magnetic disk and uses the SSD for everything else that isn't doing caching where there are heavy writes.
Until they can solve the wearing problem that gets worse with each die shrink of NAND they will never reach the wear capacity or costs of spinning rust.
The writer is simply ignoring cost as an inconvenient fact of SSD adoption rates.
Google it. Scoop and run has much higher survival rates. Paramedics don't have the tools, the training or the ability to do the things a doctor can do in an ER. The only way for a stabilize and transport system to work better would be to have multiple physicians riding around in ambulances that have all the facilities and equipment that an ER room does. The scoop and run system on the other hand will get a patient to an ER with the maximum amount of time for the ER to deliver care.
There is conclusive research that says if the patient is stabilized within an hour the survival odds go way up and the shorter the arrival time the higher the survival rate. The quicker you can get them to the ER you give the ER more time within that window to deliver real lifesaving help. For example. a patient may need to be placed on direct life support, where machines are keeping the body alive in the absence of autonomic support. Those services are not available even on advanced ambulances. In fact there are many procedures and drugs that ER's aren't allowed to handle or use. Even the use of a presser to increase blood pressure can't be given by the EMT's because improper use can kill.
This is exactly the reason people on the left complained about the ACA. The insurance companies have absolutely no incentive to negotiate low prices, they are and always have been payed a percentage of the costs. The higher the costs the more money that percentage translates too. Private insurance is a boondoggle in this country. We should expand the single payer medicare system to cover everyone and just raise the tax rate (and eliminate the high income cap).
It's about bloody time that people stop pretending medical services are a free market. They are anything but free. No one having surgery or medical services of any kind is price shopping. Not even the bloody insurance companies. And no one in the medical services business is trying to reduce costs. It's a system that's totally absent of a free and competitive market. What it is a market where some people make a LOT of money and those people have connections at the top which protect that profit at any cost.
There is a far simpler solution, simply treat the clients as untrusted and keep any information that would give an advantage on the server.
clickbait.
Carl Sagan talked about it. Look at a planet like Titan. It's got oceans of hydrocarbons. It's far enough from the sun and cold enough to have not developed life, but we can't rule it out. There is simply so many organic molecules there that any life that did exist would be overwhelmed with food.
But more importantly, in both cosmos version they discuss this very point, even if life is a 1 in a billion or 1 in a trillion chance there are still going to be literally billions of life bearing planets out there because of the shear size of the universe. Humans have very difficult time with the size of numbers involved, even physicists do, we just have no real life experience with numbers that big. The universe is so big we've only roughly mapped about 30% of what we can see and we can't even see that far. Look at the Hubble deep field shot and ask yourself how many galaxies you can see, and that was shot on a a piece of sky that's miniscule from earths surface.
It has nothing to do with race you jackass. The criminal acceptance behavior you attribute to race is attributable to economic status, as in white people at the same poverty level do the same god damned stuff. Economic status and chance for advancement is the decider of how people view the law. Someone that has nothing, and has knowledge that they will never have anything will view society as the problem and the police as enforcers of their economic slavery. This is the danger in class stratification and why ignoring all the poverty is a bad fucking idea. Trickle down economic theory is heavily responsible for this rather major attitude problem with law enforcement among the lowest economic class.
But keep blaming black people you fucking racist.
And if Google even hesitates or tries to leverage search in a way consumers don't like those very competitors will eat them alive so quickly it would make your head spin.
If everyone on the planet used duck-duck-go tomorrow and for the rest of the month Google would be in very serious trouble.
The only barrier to entry is a good search engine that turns out results people want. It's not that hard, but it's far to easy to want to screw up those results to boost revenue, something yahoo was notorious for. Microsoft's biggest expenses related to search were advertising (such as buying Yahoo's search business) and trying to convince people they could be trusted, so far they've mostly failed at both. Even at that Bing is still not as good at returning results as Google is. Maybe that's because Google's entire company is devoted to search and Yahoo and Microsoft are devoted to other things with search being a second class citizen in the company.
You might like putting people in jars but I don't, please don't attempt to classify my political leanings by putting me in a jar, particularly one I despise. The problem with your argument is that the total dominance of Google as you claim could be replaced overnight by people typing a different URL in the bar. There is no barrier to entry other than excellence in search. What I see in search is a very functional and competitive market place. Google messes up once and the lions at their door will eat their market-share in a matter of months. The total lack of barrier's to entry, the ease with which consumers can switch and the fact that prices are falling indicates a healthy free-market, even if one of the players is dominant. All regulations will do in a situation like this is break the functioning market. I'm all for regulating markets, just not doing it to ones that are functioning relatively freely.
European regulations should be focusing on the edges of the market where Google is trying to manipulate things, such as forcing them to randomize product listing instead of always listing their own first. Or making sure they don't turn their Android system into a vehicle to mobile control (but by all reports Europe has a healthier mobile competition than the US with a functional player in Microsoft). Or even leveraging their android wear or android car to gain control of other markets. Again though the touch should be light, by all accounts these markets are free and functional. Overly heavy regulation is as damaging as no regulation at all.
Yea I don't like it either but it's still not a impediment to alternative businesses IMO. Google might control advertising on Google and affiliated sites but they hardly control all advertising. And the most effective advertising is still not on the web, it's local.
The reason Google dominates these other markets is often their solution is better, easier to use and charges less than competitors. In all their years of dominance they've done one thing continually and that's to drive prices down, not up. As an example Google did massive damage to Amazon's earnings by overnight dropping hosting costs by 90%.
I guess my main gripe is that there has been no consumer hostile actions by Google (other than privacy). They've not raised prices, they don't refuse competitors advertisements. If they aren't hurting consumers than regulation should be light up until they do. For me it boils down to one simple fact, it's just not difficult for someone to type an alternative URL into a browser. There is nothing at all forcing consumers to Google, if anything they make it easier to leave their ecosystem than their competitors do.
Kept on a leash. Lets be honest here, the ONLY thing that keeps someone from using another competing search engine is nothing at all. The only reason people use Google is because it's better, the minute they stop being better and people will quit using it. I don't consider it much of a monopoly when the barrier to entry is almost nothing.
I don't particularly like them fronting their own service but again, no one is forcing anyone to use Google. It's not even the default search engine for the predominant desktop system! This appears to be being driven by the German politicians who are bowing to their own content industry to try to force google to give them a piece of their search business.
I can't help but feel that this entire push is slimy corruption politics typical to Europe where they try to protect local businesses and harm foreign ones using dubious legal means which are often against WTO agreements.
Human emissions of CO2 are what is causing global warming. There is almost no scientific resistance to this idea. There are a bunch of people that own a lot of carbon based energy that have their fingers in their ears and a bunch of people like you that they've convinced of a story alternate to reality but there is no doubt what is causing global warming.
Off-grid is what the power companies should actually be afraid of. Unfortunately they are in denial about that little tidbit. Off-grid is already cost competitive in Hawaii (mostly because their power is $0.35kwhr).
But battery prices are falling in tandem with solar panel prices. And I suspect any law banning off-grid will quickly be squashed by the courts as unconstitutional for many reasons. But off-grid represents a death spiral and would make every asset of the power company almost worthless. That death spiral is what they should fear, because every time they make being on grid with panels harder they are going to drive someone off-grid and the more people they do drive off grid the higher the shared costs will be which will drive more people off grid starting a death spiral that ends with bankruptcy and assets that are without value.
That death spiral is what Hawaii power is starting to deal with because of their mucking about with net metering. They've begun to change their tune but it could very well be too late for them. Hopefully it will serve as a lesson for all the other power companies before they walk down the same path.
The oil companies screamed like bloody murder when they talked about shaving those 4 billion in subsidies while they were raking in record profits.
But all the other groups receive equally large subsidies. If coal power cost what it's actual costs were it would be the most expensive power in the US. (I'm including the environmental and medical costs) But even if you don't include the environmental costs coal receives massive tax credits and subsidies.
Batteries are dropping in cost and increasing in capacity at about 20% per year right now. The Tesla gigafactory is expected to bring retail prices for a 85kwh battery pack to about $6000 where it's currently about $12k. For most residential homes an 85kwh battery pack is enough storage to provide power completely for more than 2weeks at full peak usage. With a gas heated home, the winter use of said battery pack would exceed a month without a single day of sunshine. Keep in mind the only time panels don't generate electricity is during the night and when the panels are covered. Even during a major storm, without snow, panels will continue to generate power during the day, just at reduced output. During the winter as long as the panels aren't covered in snow they will continue to generate power, and if tipped up to match the angle of the sun would generate better than 80% of the peak summer power.
Solar is a game changer and the retail price drops of panels will remake power generation, it's simply a matter of time at this point.
You are so very wrong.
Solar IS cost competitive. And with in a very short period, if current manufacturing price drops continue, it will be the cheapest source of power. But sure, ignore the real numbers the real reality of the situation if you wish. These numbers have been the talk of wall street for more than 2 years. Solar companies are turning down investment right now because there is too much being offered. But feel free to continue to display your ignorance. Even a fool could verify the real numbers with Google.
The only problem is the fee is rarely what you want. The only way for the fee to be fair is for the costs of grid maintenance to be separated from power purchase completely. In fact the only fair thing would be to fragment the company into a single company running the grid with only grid expenses then to split those costs evenly across all subscribers, including business.
What the power companies want is to charge a fee without justification or even providing financials to justify it. The most recent tactic they've come up with is to use subscriber revenue to install solar panels they would own. A blatant market distortion. They've even tried to make it illegal to install solar panels by mandating that only the power company can own them.
The single most important part of this is that the power companies will not play fair. Everything they request should only be evaluated with ample evidence and only allowed with valid evidence and justification for the charge.
So we've got confirmation that a VP of Uber is a sociopath with no moral compass and we're surprised? Particularly with all the bad behavior we've heard about Uber before?
You may have missed the main point.
One fueling station 400 miles from the dealership and the car only has a range of 300 miles. Do the math.
That is why certain groups like fuel cells so much more than electric cars. You can still sell the nice hydrocarbon fuel stacks to get the hydrogen. And even though you generate carbon dioxide from reforming natural gas to hydrogen it is also significantly less efficient than just burning the gas directly. In fact a CNG car would probably use less gas per mile than these fuel cell cars will ultimately end up using.