Motion-sensor lights + reduced wattage bulbs - reduce how long an outdoor light stays on and how bright it is
Mr. Beams (http://www.mrbeams.com/) has a collection of battery-powered outdoor spotlights and accent/path lighting, useful if you can't or don't want to run electrical wires. Downside of course is you have to change the batteries every so often, depending on use.
Maybe it's ABC, maybe it's advertisers, or maybe it's Nielson, but these guys all need to understand that the whole point of advertisements is to convert customers to their product.
To the companies advertising their products through commercials, the whole point of ads is to convert customers to their product. To ABC, the whole point of ads is to generate money. I don't think ABC cares whether or not a viewer watches a beer ad and goes out and buys a case of that beer. ABC does care if the millions of viewers they promised their advertisers for that 30 second spot are actually there, otherwise ABC wouldn't be able to charge as much. I would say Nielsen facilitates ABC to charge as much as they charge for their commercial slots, by providing a rough estimate of people watching their shows.
Whoops, didn't complete my thought. Therefore, the Pegasus booster is used to get the X-43A to a sufficient speed where the scramjet will actually work. Other people have also said that using the Pegasus booster first means they don't have to pile on a whole lot of other crap onto the X-43A just to test the scramjet aspect.
An article describing some sc/ramjet technology. For the impatient:
The scramjet propulsion system uses different kind of technology than traditional rockets. Instead of carrying both fuel and oxygen to ignite, the scramjet uses oxygen in the atmosphere. To get the oxygen to ignite the fuel, it needs to take the oxygen into its combustion chamber at extremely high speeds.
Rather than go out and blame society for "forcing" scientists to lie about their work in order to get funding, perhaps a simpler explanation is that the reporter was trying to slant the article this way (towards practical applications, rather than the nitty-gritty details of the scientific work), because the average Joe might better appreciate the article (and the science) if they can envision how it will make their lives better. This was after all a Reuters article, not an article from a scientific journal.
Just trying to give the scientists the benefit of the doubt.
I too read it as "C++ followed by some hex number to be named later", but after skimming very quickly through the proposal, it seems they meant "C++ (20)0x, where x depends on whatever year the spec/implementation/whatever is released". Or, at least, that's what I think it means.
On the face of it, having the loser pay seems like the right thing, and may be effective in capping how much people would be suing for.
The problem as I see it is, you might get into a situation where an individual is suing a large company for what are more or less legitimate reasons. I can't think of any really good ones at the moment, but maybe an employee suing for wrongful termination [because of race, sexual orientation, etc.], or an individual suing a large company for gross negligence, or horrible/hazardous working conditions, you get the idea. That individual would probably be suing for what would be a large sum for him (say, $1 million for lost wages and medical bills), but a mere drop in the bucket for the company. The individual loses, maybe because he couldn't afford the best lawyers, or couldn't match the money that the company was pouring in to the case, and wham! he has to pay the company.
I know it seems like there aren't too many legitimate cases any more, and maybe my example was a little contrived, but I'm sure there must be at least a few that qualify. If we say that the loser pays, then these individuals suing large companies for legitimate reasons have an incredibly tough road ahead to be justly compensated, with severe consequences if they lose. Like I said, even if the case is clearly on the individual's side, he/she might lose because of a technicality, or because he/she doesn't have the money to fight, or some other bad reason.
I like the idea of loser pays, but I'm afraid it'll give too much of an advantage to large companies in cases where the company is clearly in the wrong, but the company wins anyways because it is the proverbial 800lb gorilla.
With such a small number of theaters in the first run, isn't it a little disingenuous of Disney to say in their press release, "... it has always been our desire to share this film with the widest possible audience here in the U.S." ? I mean, give us a break! If you're a behemoth like Disney, wouldn't the widest possible audience be basically all theaters in the entire country?
Notice at the top of the first page of the opinions:
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order
that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. (Emphasis mine)
Does this mean we can write in and say that, as a formal error, the justices missed the point?
In my office building, we have a vending machine that dispenses the regular 20 oz bottles of soda and water, as well as bottles of Sobe and Starbucks Frappuccino drinks. The drink trays look like they can be set to almost any height, but I didn't look closely enough to see if the widths were adjustable for larger bottles. I just ordered myself a Frappuccino, and the dang machine nearly launched it right through the glass! Okay, it only seemed like it, but the glass bottle survived the tumble from the topmost tray to the access hole at the bottom. I'm sure you can find one of these machines by contacting your local vending machine rental companies.
Heh. It always seemed to me that the Spanish-language networks (both TV and radio) had the most powerful broadcasting equipment on the face of this earth. I can pick up a Spanish radio station pretty much anywhere, and the Spanish TV channels are much clearer than any other channels picked up by my antenna. Converting those airwaves to wireless services means I can truly be connected anywhere!
A friend of mine told me about the contest two days ago (Feb 5), and so I went over to the site and read the rules. At the time I read it, the Contest Rules had a clause that went:
"With regard to an entry that you submit as part of the Contest, you agree that such entry shall become the sole property of Google, including but not limited to the intellectual property rights associated therewith, such as patents or copyrights. In this regard, you further agree to assist Google in securing its rights, including the execution of any applications, oaths, assignments, etc., as appropriate."
I guess it's good to see that Google changed their contest rules, otherwise they would have seen far fewer entries. Of course, I have no real record that this line even existed, save the email I sent my friend to show him how evil I thought the contest was. Maybe someone has it cached somewhere?
Slashdot Mirror
Some ideas, many of which probably have been mentioned in various posts already:
Hope this helps!
Maybe it's ABC, maybe it's advertisers, or maybe it's Nielson, but these guys all need to understand that the whole point of advertisements is to convert customers to their product.
To the companies advertising their products through commercials, the whole point of ads is to convert customers to their product. To ABC, the whole point of ads is to generate money. I don't think ABC cares whether or not a viewer watches a beer ad and goes out and buys a case of that beer. ABC does care if the millions of viewers they promised their advertisers for that 30 second spot are actually there, otherwise ABC wouldn't be able to charge as much. I would say Nielsen facilitates ABC to charge as much as they charge for their commercial slots, by providing a rough estimate of people watching their shows.
You cannot change reality by perceiving it a different way.
So there is a spoon?
I read the title a little too fast, collapsed all the C's together, and wondered out loud when coding became an Olympic sport...
This is called grad school.
Whoops, didn't complete my thought. Therefore, the Pegasus booster is used to get the X-43A to a sufficient speed where the scramjet will actually work. Other people have also said that using the Pegasus booster first means they don't have to pile on a whole lot of other crap onto the X-43A just to test the scramjet aspect.
Rather than go out and blame society for "forcing" scientists to lie about their work in order to get funding, perhaps a simpler explanation is that the reporter was trying to slant the article this way (towards practical applications, rather than the nitty-gritty details of the scientific work), because the average Joe might better appreciate the article (and the science) if they can envision how it will make their lives better. This was after all a Reuters article, not an article from a scientific journal.
Just trying to give the scientists the benefit of the doubt.
I too read it as "C++ followed by some hex number to be named later", but after skimming very quickly through the proposal, it seems they meant "C++ (20)0x, where x depends on whatever year the spec/implementation/whatever is released". Or, at least, that's what I think it means.
McDonald's Corp. is encouraging its chicken suppliers to mechanically collect at least half the birds it buys by year's end.
McDonald's actually uses real chicken?
On the face of it, having the loser pay seems like the right thing, and may be effective in capping how much people would be suing for.
The problem as I see it is, you might get into a situation where an individual is suing a large company for what are more or less legitimate reasons. I can't think of any really good ones at the moment, but maybe an employee suing for wrongful termination [because of race, sexual orientation, etc.], or an individual suing a large company for gross negligence, or horrible/hazardous working conditions, you get the idea. That individual would probably be suing for what would be a large sum for him (say, $1 million for lost wages and medical bills), but a mere drop in the bucket for the company. The individual loses, maybe because he couldn't afford the best lawyers, or couldn't match the money that the company was pouring in to the case, and wham! he has to pay the company.
I know it seems like there aren't too many legitimate cases any more, and maybe my example was a little contrived, but I'm sure there must be at least a few that qualify. If we say that the loser pays, then these individuals suing large companies for legitimate reasons have an incredibly tough road ahead to be justly compensated, with severe consequences if they lose. Like I said, even if the case is clearly on the individual's side, he/she might lose because of a technicality, or because he/she doesn't have the money to fight, or some other bad reason.
I like the idea of loser pays, but I'm afraid it'll give too much of an advantage to large companies in cases where the company is clearly in the wrong, but the company wins anyways because it is the proverbial 800lb gorilla.
With such a small number of theaters in the first run, isn't it a little disingenuous of Disney to say in their press release, "... it has always been our desire to share this film with the widest possible audience here in the U.S." ? I mean, give us a break! If you're a behemoth like Disney, wouldn't the widest possible audience be basically all theaters in the entire country?
Notice at the top of the first page of the opinions:
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash- ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. (Emphasis mine)
Does this mean we can write in and say that, as a formal error, the justices missed the point?
Note to the humor-impaired: this is a joke!
In my office building, we have a vending machine that dispenses the regular 20 oz bottles of soda and water, as well as bottles of Sobe and Starbucks Frappuccino drinks. The drink trays look like they can be set to almost any height, but I didn't look closely enough to see if the widths were adjustable for larger bottles. I just ordered myself a Frappuccino, and the dang machine nearly launched it right through the glass! Okay, it only seemed like it, but the glass bottle survived the tumble from the topmost tray to the access hole at the bottom. I'm sure you can find one of these machines by contacting your local vending machine rental companies.
Heh. It always seemed to me that the Spanish-language networks (both TV and radio) had the most powerful broadcasting equipment on the face of this earth. I can pick up a Spanish radio station pretty much anywhere, and the Spanish TV channels are much clearer than any other channels picked up by my antenna. Converting those airwaves to wireless services means I can truly be connected anywhere!
"With regard to an entry that you submit as part of the Contest, you agree that such entry shall become the sole property of Google, including but not limited to the intellectual property rights associated therewith, such as patents or copyrights. In this regard, you further agree to assist Google in securing its rights, including the execution of any applications, oaths, assignments, etc., as appropriate."
I guess it's good to see that Google changed their contest rules, otherwise they would have seen far fewer entries. Of course, I have no real record that this line even existed, save the email I sent my friend to show him how evil I thought the contest was. Maybe someone has it cached somewhere?