I own one, a 2010 Genesis serves me well, I do a fair amount of cross country driving crossing over mountains and it is a pleasure to drive.
I had had a Hyundai Elantra from 2002 that had impressed me greatly with its reliability and how it took everything I through at it from the DC Beltway to water crossings to some (small scale) off roading fun. I could afford something more expensive and "upscale" in 2010, but this met my needs at a much better price, so I am quite happy with it all.
4G cores will be upgraded to server 5G radio networks.
The nice thing about the 3GPP spec is that Packet Cores are an evolution from 3G to 4G and most likely to 5G.
The US will follow the ITU and 3GPP spec because that is what the device manufacturers will be following for the new handsets. Any other prediction is just there for click bait.
I have a generic keyboard with Cherry browns at work and a Mattias quietkey pro with Alps at home. My wife threatened embed the cherry brown keyboard in my skull because of the noise, but she can tolerate the Matias.
1. The myopia is that they assume everything will be done EXACTLY as it has been done for the last 30 years, which causes the long trip times, the small living spaces, the lack of gravity. When you decide to not use the best technology to do the job, all sorts of bad secondary effects will happen.
My point is mostly that in these reports of "human problems in space" the reports specifically pick out the worst combination of chemical rockets, zero-g conditions and small habitat sizes, all of which are known to be problems, and all of which a long term mission would be avoiding because better solutions already exist that would fix these issues and confer many other benefits. So in essence, I would say this report would be better titled "Using the wrong tech for space missions is bad for the human body"
2. NASA started and then abandoned much of the tech. NERVA's has many successful tests on the ground and where ready for in space testing before the program was cancelled, so while there is still more work required, in no way is this a pie in the sky project, its just mechanical engineering. Expandable habitats are now being developed by Bigelow space craft and there are 2 successful platforms in orbit now, so it development seems well on its way for that project. Tethers or rotating spacecraft is the least developed of technology I have talked about, but the simple tether and counter-weight system is just that, simple so development of could easily be done in LEO
NERVA engines reduce trip times, less time during the trip means less radiation exposure. Nerva engines are already 2x more efficient than chemical rockets, so since mars is.... doable chemically it becomes much easier with a NERVA or other NTR design. Faster trip times reduce infrastructure and consumable needs, it really cascades from there.
Zero G - 2 ways to do it... Big rings give slow rotation which negates vertigo OR you could take a spacecraft and have a long tether to a counter weight and spin the whole ensemble on its center of gravity.
Isolation - Give people more room and more stimulus and reduce the trip times.
Every time I see reports like this, I am stunned by the myopia of the researchers. Everything that they list can be easily countered using proven technology.
Radiation - Use a NERVA engine to reduce trip times, the extra power you have from the reactor could be used to have more shielding on the vessel and/or magnetic shielding to protect from charged particles.
Zero G - Spin rotation of the habitat, or spin the craft itself with a counter-weight.
Isolation - Expandable habitats give more room per launch than anything else, so you can have room per person and more people to interact with. Think cruise ship versus submarine.
With the current revolution in the heavy lift industry, all of these technologies render the above problems moot.
I deal with ALU everyday and I say that their networking designs are finest 1990's era engineering I have ever seen. Multi-state spanning tree domains, Deathly fear of routing protocols, insanely expensive routers with crappy performance and odd limitations that are designed solely to sell insanely expensive cards. And that's just their tech, the level of bureaucracy and hate for co-existing with other vendors is astounding.
I have 2010 Genesis and I tend to get a bit above its stated MPG both in city and highway. Highway MPG can be 2-3 over its stated performance using regular unleaded. Premium gas can get another mile or so but the economics are not worth it.
The problem is that since WWII the groups we tend to fight ignore all treaties. So if we agree not to use "cyberweapons" and thus do not buld effective counter measures, we leave our stuff open to attack by groups who would not give a second thought to vilating a treaty, be it for cyber, biological, nuclear or chemical weapons.
Not that they really need to hock wares. Thier stuff rocks, it was easily one of the best purchase decisions I ever made and I have never had a regret for it. Not to mention the group I deal with there is very very good at what they do.
Sadly, I sound like a shill, but my expierance with them has been that good.
Some people prefer Untangle, but I have found that for Business usage, Endian Firewall is way better. Lots more options and stuff to play with. http://www.endian.com/ will provide you with: Transparent HTTP/DNS/FTP/SMTP/SIP proxying, NTOP, IPSEC, OpenVPN, multiple zones for network security and way more.
I used to think the same, then I got dual monitors AND I still use virtual desktops. I just switched from having them arranged horizontally to arranging them vertically. This way I get the benefits of both without huge side scrolls to trigger a desktop flip.
... How did I make stuff up? You issued a response with several different statements. I took each statement in turn and refuted them. You then declared I took the statements out of context, said I misrepresented everything you said, even when you contradicted yourself, then said you would not continue to respond, which you then contradicted yourself again by responding. At what point am I supposed to stop thinking and blindly agree to what frothing diatribe you spout next?
And BTW I LOATHE Glenn Beck.
Don't make shit up and pretend like that's what I said when I very clearly didn't.
Oh, I am sorry, I guess refuting your points is taking them out of context. So now you state that everything you say is 100% true and you refuse continue the debate. You may as well call me Hitler and get it over with.
Far less money in those 2 wars than we have spent on domestic vote buying. (Sorry could not resist that one.)
Back to taxes though....
If you feel that the top 1% should pay more, thats fine. You are entitled to your opinion. However, as you raise the taxes and the top 1% start leaving, are you going to force them to stay? New York and New Jersey tried the "Just increase taxes on the wealthy" to many times, and do you know what happened? The people hit by the taxes started to leave and then the states ended up losing revenue because of it. Just something to think about.
If I'm paying 25%-33% in taxes they should be paying at least that much if not more. But typically they pay less than 20% Sorry, but that ain't right.
You can thank the 16th amendment for that one. Since the US taxes on what people earn, not what they worth or what spend (for the part, state sales taxes pale in comparison to the current income taxes for both state and federal), of course your income taxes decrease with the larger your gross worth is, as you are no longer "earning" money, but living on investments and what not. As for it not being right, people are just reacting to what the tax code promotes. Those people who have large incomes and not wealth get nailed. Especially if you get the dreaded Alternative Minimum Tax. So in summary you are confusing wealth and income, which are taxed quite differently in the US.
Large corporations pay less than 5% of their profits in taxes.
Sigh. Ok, first off, corporations DO NOT PAY TAXES. A tax on a corporation only means that the corporation will either raise prices to the consumers who actually pays for it, or to a lesser extent they increase their efficiency (usually by removing personal to make up for the increased tax burden). So in essence, higher corporate taxes effectively become a regressive tax that unduly affects the poor in society as the increased costs affect them the most. So go ahead, justify you desire to hurt the poor.
And you know why 47% of people owed no federal income taxes in 2009? Because they were either broke or out of a job.
Lets wildly come up with numbers that in no way can be true shall we?. So you are saying that 47% of people in 2009 lost their jobs or had no appreciable income? I call BS and that is the kind of BS that pisses me off. Statistically it is untrue, and even for those who are broke, many of those did it to themselves by not being responsible adults.
Of course this doesn't take into account how poorer people pay a significantly higher percentage of payroll taxes than everyone else, or how when you overtax people who already struggle to make ends meet they have zero income to contribute back to our economy. But yeah, let's just overlook that.
But you just said they don't pay taxes? Either they pay taxes and or they have zero tax liability and many receive out and out payments from the federal government who takes the money from other people who do pay in more than they get back. So choose which on it is please.
I don't mind that the poor pay less (or nothing), there is only so much you can wring from a stone. But when you're making billions and contributing a tiny percentage of that, and then COMPLAINING it's too much, sorry, that I can't tolerate
Personally, I can almost concur with the first sentence, however I feel everyone should at least pay something so that they know that they are contributing, paying nothing and getting benefits sets up a nasty expectation that you have a right to someone else stuff. As for the higher payroll taxes, look at Social Security the majority of that. It is always wonderful to be FORCED to pay for a program that would be considered a felony and get people jail time if the private sector tried to run something like it. People have tried to fix it, but every attempt has been shot down so far to kill this horribly mutated monster.
If you're going to use this country to become disgustingly wealthy at least have the common decency to pay it forward. But there is no decency in being rich. All they care about is getting richer, and they don't care who gets fucked as long as the money keeps rolling in. It's vile, and I really don't think We the People aren't going to put up with it for much longer.
And now we get to the crux of the matter. You have issues with people who have more money than you, and think that YOU deserve
You do realize that the top 1% of wage earners in the US pays over 40% of all federal income taxes. And over 50% of Americans effectively pay 0 federal taxes OR get more back in "credits" than they pay in. (Thank you GWB for "earned income credits"). So at what point do you think is the fair break out for taxing high income earners?
I could just as easily get direct SIP trunking to my PBX. I like this because it merges my cell number and google voice into my existing PBX. No fuss, no settings to deal with. I come home, put my phone my desk, it automatically peers with the XLink, and now I can access its trunks from any phone on my PBX, and use my PBX to route calls in ways google voice does not support. This, for me, gets me the best of both worlds. Mobile when I am mobile, features when I am stationary.
I don't have that problem. But I am a special case, being that my cell carrier is my employer. I keep 15-20 numbers active on all sorts of phones for testing.
If you take an android device with google voice installed. Tell it use google voice for all calls. The get an Xlink device (http://www.myxlink.com/index.aspx). Peer the XLink to your android device via bluetooth. Now you have analog dial tone coming out of the XLink and you can put it into a PBX or regular analog phones.
Slashdot Mirror
I had had a Hyundai Elantra from 2002 that had impressed me greatly with its reliability and how it took everything I through at it from the DC Beltway to water crossings to some (small scale) off roading fun. I could afford something more expensive and "upscale" in 2010, but this met my needs at a much better price, so I am quite happy with it all.
4G cores will be upgraded to server 5G radio networks.
The nice thing about the 3GPP spec is that Packet Cores are an evolution from 3G to 4G and most likely to 5G.
The US will follow the ITU and 3GPP spec because that is what the device manufacturers will be following for the new handsets. Any other prediction is just there for click bait.
I have a generic keyboard with Cherry browns at work and a Mattias quietkey pro with Alps at home. My wife threatened embed the cherry brown keyboard in my skull because of the noise, but she can tolerate the Matias.
1. The myopia is that they assume everything will be done EXACTLY as it has been done for the last 30 years, which causes the long trip times, the small living spaces, the lack of gravity. When you decide to not use the best technology to do the job, all sorts of bad secondary effects will happen.
My point is mostly that in these reports of "human problems in space" the reports specifically pick out the worst combination of chemical rockets, zero-g conditions and small habitat sizes, all of which are known to be problems, and all of which a long term mission would be avoiding because better solutions already exist that would fix these issues and confer many other benefits. So in essence, I would say this report would be better titled "Using the wrong tech for space missions is bad for the human body"
2. NASA started and then abandoned much of the tech. NERVA's has many successful tests on the ground and where ready for in space testing before the program was cancelled, so while there is still more work required, in no way is this a pie in the sky project, its just mechanical engineering. Expandable habitats are now being developed by Bigelow space craft and there are 2 successful platforms in orbit now, so it development seems well on its way for that project. Tethers or rotating spacecraft is the least developed of technology I have talked about, but the simple tether and counter-weight system is just that, simple so development of could easily be done in LEO
NERVA engines reduce trip times, less time during the trip means less radiation exposure. Nerva engines are already 2x more efficient than chemical rockets, so since mars is.... doable chemically it becomes much easier with a NERVA or other NTR design. Faster trip times reduce infrastructure and consumable needs, it really cascades from there.
Zero G - 2 ways to do it... Big rings give slow rotation which negates vertigo OR you could take a spacecraft and have a long tether to a counter weight and spin the whole ensemble on its center of gravity.
Isolation - Give people more room and more stimulus and reduce the trip times.
Everything I mentioned has already been researched and passed significant testing milestones... and then never really went any further.
We have the answers to the problems, we just have to have the will power to use them.
Every time I see reports like this, I am stunned by the myopia of the researchers. Everything that they list can be easily countered using proven technology.
Radiation - Use a NERVA engine to reduce trip times, the extra power you have from the reactor could be used to have more shielding on the vessel and/or magnetic shielding to protect from charged particles.
Zero G - Spin rotation of the habitat, or spin the craft itself with a counter-weight.
Isolation - Expandable habitats give more room per launch than anything else, so you can have room per person and more people to interact with. Think cruise ship versus submarine.
With the current revolution in the heavy lift industry, all of these technologies render the above problems moot.
I deal with ALU everyday and I say that their networking designs are finest 1990's era engineering I have ever seen. Multi-state spanning tree domains, Deathly fear of routing protocols, insanely expensive routers with crappy performance and odd limitations that are designed solely to sell insanely expensive cards. And that's just their tech, the level of bureaucracy and hate for co-existing with other vendors is astounding.
I have 2010 Genesis and I tend to get a bit above its stated MPG both in city and highway. Highway MPG can be 2-3 over its stated performance using regular unleaded. Premium gas can get another mile or so but the economics are not worth it.
slack 2.7, redhat 4.2, debian, ubuntu, xubuntu
The problem is that since WWII the groups we tend to fight ignore all treaties. So if we agree not to use "cyberweapons" and thus do not buld effective counter measures, we leave our stuff open to attack by groups who would not give a second thought to vilating a treaty, be it for cyber, biological, nuclear or chemical weapons.
Not that they really need to hock wares. Thier stuff rocks, it was easily one of the best purchase decisions I ever made and I have never had a regret for it. Not to mention the group I deal with there is very very good at what they do.
Sadly, I sound like a shill, but my expierance with them has been that good.
Get a tour of super huge radio telescopes and the drive to get there is pretty too.
Some people prefer Untangle, but I have found that for Business usage, Endian Firewall is way better. Lots more options and stuff to play with. http://www.endian.com/ will provide you with: Transparent HTTP/DNS/FTP/SMTP/SIP proxying, NTOP, IPSEC, OpenVPN, multiple zones for network security and way more.
Water :) Density increases with heat from the solid to liquid phase
I used to think the same, then I got dual monitors AND I still use virtual desktops. I just switched from having them arranged horizontally to arranging them vertically. This way I get the benefits of both without huge side scrolls to trigger a desktop flip.
... How did I make stuff up? You issued a response with several different statements. I took each statement in turn and refuted them. You then declared I took the statements out of context, said I misrepresented everything you said, even when you contradicted yourself, then said you would not continue to respond, which you then contradicted yourself again by responding. At what point am I supposed to stop thinking and blindly agree to what frothing diatribe you spout next?
And BTW I LOATHE Glenn Beck.
Don't make shit up and pretend like that's what I said when I very clearly didn't.
My god, using quote tags is now making stuff up.
Oh, I am sorry, I guess refuting your points is taking them out of context. So now you state that everything you say is 100% true and you refuse continue the debate. You may as well call me Hitler and get it over with.
Also, not a Republican. Athiest Conservative :)
Far less money in those 2 wars than we have spent on domestic vote buying. (Sorry could not resist that one.)
Back to taxes though....
If you feel that the top 1% should pay more, thats fine. You are entitled to your opinion. However, as you raise the taxes and the top 1% start leaving, are you going to force them to stay? New York and New Jersey tried the "Just increase taxes on the wealthy" to many times, and do you know what happened? The people hit by the taxes started to leave and then the states ended up losing revenue because of it. Just something to think about.
Lets break this up into pieces shall we?
If I'm paying 25%-33% in taxes they should be paying at least that much if not more. But typically they pay less than 20% Sorry, but that ain't right.
You can thank the 16th amendment for that one. Since the US taxes on what people earn, not what they worth or what spend (for the part, state sales taxes pale in comparison to the current income taxes for both state and federal), of course your income taxes decrease with the larger your gross worth is, as you are no longer "earning" money, but living on investments and what not. As for it not being right, people are just reacting to what the tax code promotes. Those people who have large incomes and not wealth get nailed. Especially if you get the dreaded Alternative Minimum Tax. So in summary you are confusing wealth and income, which are taxed quite differently in the US.
Large corporations pay less than 5% of their profits in taxes.
Sigh. Ok, first off, corporations DO NOT PAY TAXES. A tax on a corporation only means that the corporation will either raise prices to the consumers who actually pays for it, or to a lesser extent they increase their efficiency (usually by removing personal to make up for the increased tax burden). So in essence, higher corporate taxes effectively become a regressive tax that unduly affects the poor in society as the increased costs affect them the most. So go ahead, justify you desire to hurt the poor.
And you know why 47% of people owed no federal income taxes in 2009? Because they were either broke or out of a job.
Lets wildly come up with numbers that in no way can be true shall we?. So you are saying that 47% of people in 2009 lost their jobs or had no appreciable income? I call BS and that is the kind of BS that pisses me off. Statistically it is untrue, and even for those who are broke, many of those did it to themselves by not being responsible adults.
Of course this doesn't take into account how poorer people pay a significantly higher percentage of payroll taxes than everyone else, or how when you overtax people who already struggle to make ends meet they have zero income to contribute back to our economy. But yeah, let's just overlook that.
But you just said they don't pay taxes? Either they pay taxes and or they have zero tax liability and many receive out and out payments from the federal government who takes the money from other people who do pay in more than they get back. So choose which on it is please.
I don't mind that the poor pay less (or nothing), there is only so much you can wring from a stone. But when you're making billions and contributing a tiny percentage of that, and then COMPLAINING it's too much, sorry, that I can't tolerate
Personally, I can almost concur with the first sentence, however I feel everyone should at least pay something so that they know that they are contributing, paying nothing and getting benefits sets up a nasty expectation that you have a right to someone else stuff. As for the higher payroll taxes, look at Social Security the majority of that. It is always wonderful to be FORCED to pay for a program that would be considered a felony and get people jail time if the private sector tried to run something like it. People have tried to fix it, but every attempt has been shot down so far to kill this horribly mutated monster.
If you're going to use this country to become disgustingly wealthy at least have the common decency to pay it forward. But there is no decency in being rich. All they care about is getting richer, and they don't care who gets fucked as long as the money keeps rolling in. It's vile, and I really don't think We the People aren't going to put up with it for much longer.
And now we get to the crux of the matter. You have issues with people who have more money than you, and think that YOU deserve
You do realize that the top 1% of wage earners in the US pays over 40% of all federal income taxes. And over 50% of Americans effectively pay 0 federal taxes OR get more back in "credits" than they pay in. (Thank you GWB for "earned income credits"). So at what point do you think is the fair break out for taxing high income earners?
I could just as easily get direct SIP trunking to my PBX. I like this because it merges my cell number and google voice into my existing PBX. No fuss, no settings to deal with. I come home, put my phone my desk, it automatically peers with the XLink, and now I can access its trunks from any phone on my PBX, and use my PBX to route calls in ways google voice does not support. This, for me, gets me the best of both worlds. Mobile when I am mobile, features when I am stationary.
I don't have that problem. But I am a special case, being that my cell carrier is my employer. I keep 15-20 numbers active on all sorts of phones for testing.
... dirt cheap android tablet + wifi ftw
just sayin'
If you take an android device with google voice installed. Tell it use google voice for all calls. The get an Xlink device (http://www.myxlink.com/index.aspx). Peer the XLink to your android device via bluetooth. Now you have analog dial tone coming out of the XLink and you can put it into a PBX or regular analog phones.