While it might work during cruise and landing, will the extra fuel need for takeoff and possibly to support flight at cruise altitude, and thus extra fuel burn and the need to carry such fuel, outweigh the benefits in reduced fuel consumption. AC manufacturers go to great lengths to save a pound given the cost savings over a plane's lifetime, this seems to be a bit of a pipe dream right now. For example, they pulled airphones once usage dropped to the point the companies supplying the tech and paying a fee to put it on airplanes lost money, just as pulling in seat video makes sense with the addition of wifi and the increase number of passengers carrying tables and cell phones made it more economical to provide wifi access to the in seat features that way. they were carrying the weight anyway in passenger luggage, why not get rid f the in seat weight to save money. Add in the potential for a catastrophic fire while flying due to a battery problem and you have some reall hurdles to overcome, I can see Boeing and JetBlue putting some money into it to get access to the technology if it pans out, just as investing in experimenting with alternate fuel sources makes sense.
I'm sure this is supposed to be a joke, but I live in Saskatchewan.
All we have around here is farm land. I guess riding a tractor or combine/harvester could be fun or exciting, but well, not really. While they are big, they don't go very fast or do any tricks.
Yup, although I did some work there in Dec - Feb. It was a bit cold but an interesting city.
My girlfriend had this opinion when running a coffee stand in a shopping centre. If a customer complained there would be one chance to remake the coffee. If they complained again they got there few dollars back along with a "We can't make a coffee to suit you. Go find someone who can and don't come back. We won't do any better tomorrow and we have other customers to serve".
Difference is, a good quality high volume low cost product that people line up for and sells in the thousands per day allows you to tell a few customers to go screw themselves. An expensive low-volume emerging product still heavily reliant on word of mouth does not.
Exactly; even if the product is not a high volume low cost product. Life is too short to deal with the 1% assholes when you could be dealing with the 99% that are reasonable and just want good service and appreciate that sometimes stuff happens.
There are already concerns that foreign tourism revenue is starting to dry up after Trump's election and the (attempted) Muslim bans. If it's actually put into effect this "extreme vetting" will only accelerate that process.
Part of the challenge is foreign tourism tends to concentrate in certain areas, such as Disney, NYC, Hawaii, etc and is not spread more evenly across the country. Thus, despite the significant impact it may have on some areas others will think it's Ok because well, Trump; proving you can't fix stupid.
My thoughts exactly. Because Apple represents the lion share of the company profits, it makes sense for Apple to say they are building out their own GPU, watch the stock drop, then be in a position to better buy out position.
I doubt that would work, even if it were true. As soon as word got out about talks the price would recover and the sale is a negotiation, not merely buying all the stock on the market. Imagination wold negotiate a fair price if Apple decided it needed to buy it for the IP. The IP might also be worth licensing to other Imagination customers as well, or as one more set of patents to potentially beat someone with if they decide to sue Apple. If Apple is deciding not to use their IP they may be going in a completely different direction with their GPU. That is one advantage of a closed system - they can control driver development and hardware to make everything work, in theory at least.
I seriously doubt that an ISP eavesdropping on a connection to my healthcare provider and publishing whatever it intercepts would be kosher. I'm too tired and lazy at the moment to do some googling about it, but maybe later.
I think it's more of an issue of collecting your browsing habits and selling that; which could reveal medical information which would not be subject to HIPPA rules.
It will be interesting if medical providers now feel at risk for allowing access you to your records on line or for sharing records between providers on line, vis a vis HIPPA. Will providers have to be concerned about the hospital's or patients ISP sharing data?
I doubt they worry about the patient as the patient can do what they want with their records. As far as ISP's go; I'm guessing the safeguarding requirements would dictate encrypt transmission to avoid accidental disclosure. If I were in charge of medical records I would however be concerned with what data an ISP was collecting when a record is accessed since privacy could be breached.
Especially considering health info and HIPAA. It's illegal to publish any medical information that can be linked back to an individual, even indirectly.
That depends. HIPPA regulates what certain entities must do to protect health information, but does not have a blanket prohibition on publishing it. Specifically from the HHS website:
The HIPAA Privacy Rule establishes national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and other personal health information and applies to health plans, health care clearinghouses, and those health care providers that conduct certain health care transactions electronically. The Rule requires appropriate safeguards to protect the privacy of personal health information, and sets limits and conditions on the uses and disclosures that may be made of such information without patient authorization. The Rule also gives patients rights over their health information, including rights to examine and obtain a copy of their health records, and to request corrections.
That's not politics, that's linguistics. The languages are related in structure, and the gender structure is largely compatible, hence it makes perfect sense for learners to stick with it so as to avoid confusion. Exceptions may be present in case of languages that collapsed the masculine-feminine axis instead of the animate-inanimate axis in the unstable late-PIE tri-gender system (some languages such as Czech instead extending it into four effective genders with retaining indeterminate/generic masculines). I believe that's some Scandinavian languages, which, however, have many fewer speakers than either of Spanish, French, German, or Russian and other Slavic languages which are definitely compatible with the IE gender structure.
Heh. For half of Indo-European population that learned English as a second language, speaking as one of those people, it's more of a constant confusion than anything even resembling common sense.
Please don't bring politics into a grammar discussion. One does not want to confuse one...
If the patent holder wishes to claim they still control the printer and cartridge, then they didn't sell it to me. They rented it to me. And like a landlord who is responsible for repairing things that break down in a rented apartment, they are responsible for fixing the printer if it breaks for as long as they claim they control the cartridge. i.e. If they claim the control the cartridge forever, then that is the same thing as saying the printer has a transferable lifetime warranty.
I would argue they are also responsible for the proper disposal once it has reached EOL. I'm sure they'd love getting boxes of printers, manuals, DVDs, styrofoam and cartridges (although some do recycle to avoid then getting into the secondary market) back to dispose of once they are no longer making the product. Or that licensed software in the TV that you sent back.
Right. The freer the market, the harder it is to win with Hollywood Accounting. It works as well as it does because it's not a free market. In a free market, you pull that trick once, people will never work with you again.
While that may be true, a number of people who back films either:
a. Have some other way they are getting paid for their involvement so they don't care about the upfront costs since they will make money anyway. In addition, they don't have to share that money but profits would be shared so they have no good reason to want a profit
b. It's a way to get to hang around Hollywood types and that's the cost of entry...
The ones who get screwed are those who take a cut of the net profit because they don't understand the system; such as a writer who doesn't understand the system and gets a 10% of the net instead of.1% gross.
...of your abusive business model, where you make shit films, charge too much for them, trick people into going with clever advertising, and then get laws passed that criminalize format-shifting because you're so afraid that a tiny bit of revenue will slip through your greedy fingers. Even Hollywood accounting can't win in a free market. Man, that really sucks. Your life is so hard.
While I agree with you overall, I disagree with you assessment of Hollywood accounting, it always wins. A film's purpose is not to make a net profit, it's to take the angel's money and make a profit for everyone except those investors. Hollywood accounting is a brilliant scheme to do just that.I mean, where else can you spend 60$Million, make 580$Million, and still be in the red so you don't have to payoff the people who gave you the money in the first place?
Their curated list of critics simply don't like the same movies I do. Therefore there is little to no correlation between my enjoyment of a film and its RT freshness. It's also setting expectations. People went into BvS expecting a terrible movie. If you look for a terrible movie, you will find it.
Then don't bother with reading RT reviews. I don't use it much but generally if I do look for similar movies to se how they tend to rate them and then take their ratings with a grain of salt. Hollywood doesn't like people saying their babies are ugly and want to go back to having to only please a few and build a relationship with to get decent reviews.
Does that same taxable gain apply to any other currency transactions in U.S. ? If you exchange 100 U.S. dollars for Japanese Yen or British Pounds or Euro's and the currency exchange somehow results in a doubling of your value do you have to pay capital gains on the difference? I'm asking because I have accounts in several currencies including U.S. dollars but I don't pay capital gains in my country on the exchange,
No because you were already taxed on it as income at some point. With Bitcoin you are trading a commodity that you purchased at X and sold at Y and thus have either a gain or loss; just as if you bout Pounds or Yen, held them and then traded the at a different price than the purchase price.
For the longest time Google Maps showed my house as being in the Atlantic Ocean. I am not sure I trust them quite so much to remember where I parked if I don't check it before walking off.
They're just showing the impact of global warming. Take it as a warning from your friends at Google Earth.
however that ruling was just (or soon to be) reversed so... why the cancellation e-mails now?
Uncertainty. The rule could easily be later reversed a Google left holding the bag; I'm guessing Google found the cost of building out wasn't worth the investment and so bailed after the initial test. Next step is probably to sell the infrastructure to an incumbent ISP and move on to the next big idea.
Just think how rich you'd be if you started buying up bitcoins back when they were worth nothing...
How liquid is the market? If I have a million in bitcoin I am a paper millionaire unless I can convert all of them at will. Is there a market maker that can do such a transaction, like you can do on the NYSE, to ensure the transaction can be processed immediately? Liquidity is one of the problems bitcoin must overcome to be a viable store of wealth and not speculative. Given the concentration of production in a few miners also means if you create a liquid market a few people can easily manipulate the price to their advantage; that makes it ripe for a pump and dump scheme than a currency.
Are they seeing this a currency or stock? Because what they could (and probably do) tax is Capital Gain. You bought some bitcoins at 50$, they are now 1050$ (looks like some people cashed in from the 1280$ peak:-)), so that's 20-30% capital gain tax on 1000$/btc please.
Since you did hold on to them more than a year that's long term capital gain tax which is a bit less, though
But it may indeed be hard to prove where these come from. Did you mine them, did you buy them as an investment, was this some kind of payment, etc...
How you got them is somewhat irrelevant. What counts is your cost vs what you sold them for so the delta is a taxable gain in the US. Unless you mined them you'd do well to record your deductible cost so as to verify the gain or loss like any other cost associated with production. If you mined them you probably could include the mining costs as to offset the gain but that cost would be negligible since the cost of the infrastructure probably could not be included and the actual electricity cost directly related to mining is small in comparison. Equipment would probably be a depreciable expense but unless you are selling in the same tax period you would have no revenue to be offset by the expense; in essence, is it an investment in which case the costs of equipment is not an expense or a business in which case it would. It all comes down to how the IRS would treat them.
If you're constituency is the entrenched hospitality industry, it's hardly and overreach. If your constituency is actually the people who voted for you and you actually give a rats ass about their interests, its most egregious overreach. Gee, I wonder where the party lines will be on this one.
That's the key - it's only over reach if they prevent you from doing something or let others do something you don't like; it's good policy if they let you do something or prevent others from doing something you don't want them to be able to do. personally, the state's function is to set uniform rules for safety, codes, etc. where uniformity is needed and let local governments decide what sorts of regulations are appropriate for their locality. Of course, special interests find it easier to influence state legislature so they work at that level, wether it's to ban municipalities from becoming ISPs or overriding local laws they don't like. For all the "libertarian" talk often coming from startups some sure sure jump right into government regulation when their business is being disrupted.
"inaccurate," "irrelevant," "inadequate" or "excessive"
According to whom? Free speech, etc, etc, etc... As long as it's not ruled libel in court, it's just an opinion someone doesn't like. Yeah, there are a lot of assholes out there that need to grow some skin or get off of the Intertubes.
This is just more nonsense from Luddites that will never see a vote, although lawyers would love it since it smells like litigation...
Yup, and how do you enforce it if it becomes law? First amendment aside, it would only apply to New York and thus be ineffective at best. You could wind up being sued in NY even if you don't live there so it would definetly have a chilling effect on speech. It sounds like someone called a politician a butt head and they decided to do something, even if that is an accurate statement about them.
Yep, I was going to post that as well. I have a library of over 5000 paperbacks, It's fun introducing people to Remo Williams, or Tarl Cabot, Casca and many others:)
Interesting that the same argument made by the "younger" generation - we're used to sharing, is now being used by "those of a certain age" to explain theirs. From a cultural standpoint, it's interesting to see how a norm, in this case passing around books, translates to a similar behavior in the eWorld. That has ramifications for a whole lot of industries. For example, if the really younger generation gets used to using Uber vs buying a car what happens when they start raising families. Will tehy automagically start buying minivans or will Uber morph int a Parent Taxi service?
Slashdot Mirror
While it might work during cruise and landing, will the extra fuel need for takeoff and possibly to support flight at cruise altitude, and thus extra fuel burn and the need to carry such fuel, outweigh the benefits in reduced fuel consumption. AC manufacturers go to great lengths to save a pound given the cost savings over a plane's lifetime, this seems to be a bit of a pipe dream right now. For example, they pulled airphones once usage dropped to the point the companies supplying the tech and paying a fee to put it on airplanes lost money, just as pulling in seat video makes sense with the addition of wifi and the increase number of passengers carrying tables and cell phones made it more economical to provide wifi access to the in seat features that way. they were carrying the weight anyway in passenger luggage, why not get rid f the in seat weight to save money. Add in the potential for a catastrophic fire while flying due to a battery problem and you have some reall hurdles to overcome, I can see Boeing and JetBlue putting some money into it to get access to the technology if it pans out, just as investing in experimenting with alternate fuel sources makes sense.
I'm sure this is supposed to be a joke, but I live in Saskatchewan.
All we have around here is farm land. I guess riding a tractor or combine/harvester could be fun or exciting, but well, not really. While they are big, they don't go very fast or do any tricks.
Yup, although I did some work there in Dec - Feb. It was a bit cold but an interesting city.
My girlfriend had this opinion when running a coffee stand in a shopping centre. If a customer complained there would be one chance to remake the coffee. If they complained again they got there few dollars back along with a "We can't make a coffee to suit you. Go find someone who can and don't come back. We won't do any better tomorrow and we have other customers to serve".
Difference is, a good quality high volume low cost product that people line up for and sells in the thousands per day allows you to tell a few customers to go screw themselves. An expensive low-volume emerging product still heavily reliant on word of mouth does not.
Exactly; even if the product is not a high volume low cost product. Life is too short to deal with the 1% assholes when you could be dealing with the 99% that are reasonable and just want good service and appreciate that sometimes stuff happens.
Canada offers a decent alternative "Americanized tourist" experience.
Yup. I especially love Saskatchewan Disney...
There are already concerns that foreign tourism revenue is starting to dry up after Trump's election and the (attempted) Muslim bans. If it's actually put into effect this "extreme vetting" will only accelerate that process.
Part of the challenge is foreign tourism tends to concentrate in certain areas, such as Disney, NYC, Hawaii, etc and is not spread more evenly across the country. Thus, despite the significant impact it may have on some areas others will think it's Ok because well, Trump; proving you can't fix stupid.
My thoughts exactly. Because Apple represents the lion share of the company profits, it makes sense for Apple to say they are building out their own GPU, watch the stock drop, then be in a position to better buy out position.
I doubt that would work, even if it were true. As soon as word got out about talks the price would recover and the sale is a negotiation, not merely buying all the stock on the market. Imagination wold negotiate a fair price if Apple decided it needed to buy it for the IP. The IP might also be worth licensing to other Imagination customers as well, or as one more set of patents to potentially beat someone with if they decide to sue Apple. If Apple is deciding not to use their IP they may be going in a completely different direction with their GPU. That is one advantage of a closed system - they can control driver development and hardware to make everything work, in theory at least.
I seriously doubt that an ISP eavesdropping on a connection to my healthcare provider and publishing whatever it intercepts would be kosher. I'm too tired and lazy at the moment to do some googling about it, but maybe later.
I think it's more of an issue of collecting your browsing habits and selling that; which could reveal medical information which would not be subject to HIPPA rules.
It will be interesting if medical providers now feel at risk for allowing access you to your records on line or for sharing records between providers on line, vis a vis HIPPA. Will providers have to be concerned about the hospital's or patients ISP sharing data?
I doubt they worry about the patient as the patient can do what they want with their records. As far as ISP's go; I'm guessing the safeguarding requirements would dictate encrypt transmission to avoid accidental disclosure. If I were in charge of medical records I would however be concerned with what data an ISP was collecting when a record is accessed since privacy could be breached.
Especially considering health info and HIPAA. It's illegal to publish any medical information that can be linked back to an individual, even indirectly.
That depends. HIPPA regulates what certain entities must do to protect health information, but does not have a blanket prohibition on publishing it. Specifically from the HHS website:
The HIPAA Privacy Rule establishes national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and other personal health information and applies to health plans, health care clearinghouses, and those health care providers that conduct certain health care transactions electronically. The Rule requires appropriate safeguards to protect the privacy of personal health information, and sets limits and conditions on the uses and disclosures that may be made of such information without patient authorization. The Rule also gives patients rights over their health information, including rights to examine and obtain a copy of their health records, and to request corrections.
That's not politics, that's linguistics. The languages are related in structure, and the gender structure is largely compatible, hence it makes perfect sense for learners to stick with it so as to avoid confusion. Exceptions may be present in case of languages that collapsed the masculine-feminine axis instead of the animate-inanimate axis in the unstable late-PIE tri-gender system (some languages such as Czech instead extending it into four effective genders with retaining indeterminate/generic masculines). I believe that's some Scandinavian languages, which, however, have many fewer speakers than either of Spanish, French, German, or Russian and other Slavic languages which are definitely compatible with the IE gender structure.
And if it's UPS it's logistics...
That's why I would probably say "Make sure your student brings the f***ing book to class." in style.
Their you go, teaching kids about sex. Next thing you know their doing it...
"In French, for example, the pronoun on can stand in for "he" or "she." English has no such equivalent; " ...
"We could use "one," but that is a very impersonal pronoun."
I hate to disagree, but 'one' is _exactly_ the same thing as the french 'on'. They words even have some sort of resemblance, don't you think?
One is the loneliest ...
Heh. For half of Indo-European population that learned English as a second language, speaking as one of those people, it's more of a constant confusion than anything even resembling common sense.
Please don't bring politics into a grammar discussion. One does not want to confuse one...
If the patent holder wishes to claim they still control the printer and cartridge, then they didn't sell it to me. They rented it to me. And like a landlord who is responsible for repairing things that break down in a rented apartment, they are responsible for fixing the printer if it breaks for as long as they claim they control the cartridge. i.e. If they claim the control the cartridge forever, then that is the same thing as saying the printer has a transferable lifetime warranty.
I would argue they are also responsible for the proper disposal once it has reached EOL. I'm sure they'd love getting boxes of printers, manuals, DVDs, styrofoam and cartridges (although some do recycle to avoid then getting into the secondary market) back to dispose of once they are no longer making the product. Or that licensed software in the TV that you sent back.
Right. The freer the market, the harder it is to win with Hollywood Accounting. It works as well as it does because it's not a free market. In a free market, you pull that trick once, people will never work with you again.
While that may be true, a number of people who back films either:
a. Have some other way they are getting paid for their involvement so they don't care about the upfront costs since they will make money anyway. In addition, they don't have to share that money but profits would be shared so they have no good reason to want a profit
b. It's a way to get to hang around Hollywood types and that's the cost of entry...
The ones who get screwed are those who take a cut of the net profit because they don't understand the system; such as a writer who doesn't understand the system and gets a 10% of the net instead of .1% gross.
...of your abusive business model, where you make shit films, charge too much for them, trick people into going with clever advertising, and then get laws passed that criminalize format-shifting because you're so afraid that a tiny bit of revenue will slip through your greedy fingers. Even Hollywood accounting can't win in a free market. Man, that really sucks. Your life is so hard.
While I agree with you overall, I disagree with you assessment of Hollywood accounting, it always wins. A film's purpose is not to make a net profit, it's to take the angel's money and make a profit for everyone except those investors. Hollywood accounting is a brilliant scheme to do just that.I mean, where else can you spend 60$Million, make 580$Million, and still be in the red so you don't have to payoff the people who gave you the money in the first place?
Their curated list of critics simply don't like the same movies I do. Therefore there is little to no correlation between my enjoyment of a film and its RT freshness. It's also setting expectations. People went into BvS expecting a terrible movie. If you look for a terrible movie, you will find it.
Then don't bother with reading RT reviews. I don't use it much but generally if I do look for similar movies to se how they tend to rate them and then take their ratings with a grain of salt. Hollywood doesn't like people saying their babies are ugly and want to go back to having to only please a few and build a relationship with to get decent reviews.
Does that same taxable gain apply to any other currency transactions in U.S. ? If you exchange 100 U.S. dollars for Japanese Yen or British Pounds or Euro's and the currency exchange somehow results in a doubling of your value do you have to pay capital gains on the difference? I'm asking because I have accounts in several currencies including U.S. dollars but I don't pay capital gains in my country on the exchange,
No because you were already taxed on it as income at some point. With Bitcoin you are trading a commodity that you purchased at X and sold at Y and thus have either a gain or loss; just as if you bout Pounds or Yen, held them and then traded the at a different price than the purchase price.
For the longest time Google Maps showed my house as being in the Atlantic Ocean. I am not sure I trust them quite so much to remember where I parked if I don't check it before walking off.
They're just showing the impact of global warming. Take it as a warning from your friends at Google Earth.
however that ruling was just (or soon to be) reversed so... why the cancellation e-mails now?
Uncertainty. The rule could easily be later reversed a Google left holding the bag; I'm guessing Google found the cost of building out wasn't worth the investment and so bailed after the initial test. Next step is probably to sell the infrastructure to an incumbent ISP and move on to the next big idea.
Just think how rich you'd be if you started buying up bitcoins back when they were worth nothing...
How liquid is the market? If I have a million in bitcoin I am a paper millionaire unless I can convert all of them at will. Is there a market maker that can do such a transaction, like you can do on the NYSE, to ensure the transaction can be processed immediately? Liquidity is one of the problems bitcoin must overcome to be a viable store of wealth and not speculative. Given the concentration of production in a few miners also means if you create a liquid market a few people can easily manipulate the price to their advantage; that makes it ripe for a pump and dump scheme than a currency.
Are they seeing this a currency or stock? Because what they could (and probably do) tax is Capital Gain. You bought some bitcoins at 50$, they are now 1050$ (looks like some people cashed in from the 1280$ peak :-)), so that's 20-30% capital gain tax on 1000$/btc please.
Since you did hold on to them more than a year that's long term capital gain tax which is a bit less, though
But it may indeed be hard to prove where these come from. Did you mine them, did you buy them as an investment, was this some kind of payment, etc...
How you got them is somewhat irrelevant. What counts is your cost vs what you sold them for so the delta is a taxable gain in the US. Unless you mined them you'd do well to record your deductible cost so as to verify the gain or loss like any other cost associated with production. If you mined them you probably could include the mining costs as to offset the gain but that cost would be negligible since the cost of the infrastructure probably could not be included and the actual electricity cost directly related to mining is small in comparison. Equipment would probably be a depreciable expense but unless you are selling in the same tax period you would have no revenue to be offset by the expense; in essence, is it an investment in which case the costs of equipment is not an expense or a business in which case it would. It all comes down to how the IRS would treat them.
If you're constituency is the entrenched hospitality industry, it's hardly and overreach. If your constituency is actually the people who voted for you and you actually give a rats ass about their interests, its most egregious overreach. Gee, I wonder where the party lines will be on this one.
That's the key - it's only over reach if they prevent you from doing something or let others do something you don't like; it's good policy if they let you do something or prevent others from doing something you don't want them to be able to do. personally, the state's function is to set uniform rules for safety, codes, etc. where uniformity is needed and let local governments decide what sorts of regulations are appropriate for their locality. Of course, special interests find it easier to influence state legislature so they work at that level, wether it's to ban municipalities from becoming ISPs or overriding local laws they don't like. For all the "libertarian" talk often coming from startups some sure sure jump right into government regulation when their business is being disrupted.
"inaccurate," "irrelevant," "inadequate" or "excessive"
According to whom? Free speech, etc, etc, etc... As long as it's not ruled libel in court, it's just an opinion someone doesn't like. Yeah, there are a lot of assholes out there that need to grow some skin or get off of the Intertubes.
This is just more nonsense from Luddites that will never see a vote, although lawyers would love it since it smells like litigation...
Yup, and how do you enforce it if it becomes law? First amendment aside, it would only apply to New York and thus be ineffective at best. You could wind up being sued in NY even if you don't live there so it would definetly have a chilling effect on speech. It sounds like someone called a politician a butt head and they decided to do something, even if that is an accurate statement about them.
Yep, I was going to post that as well. I have a library of over 5000 paperbacks, It's fun introducing people to Remo Williams, or Tarl Cabot, Casca and many others :)
Interesting that the same argument made by the "younger" generation - we're used to sharing, is now being used by "those of a certain age" to explain theirs. From a cultural standpoint, it's interesting to see how a norm, in this case passing around books, translates to a similar behavior in the eWorld. That has ramifications for a whole lot of industries. For example, if the really younger generation gets used to using Uber vs buying a car what happens when they start raising families. Will tehy automagically start buying minivans or will Uber morph int a Parent Taxi service?