well i suggest to add "can be powered by laser" to the proposal for the Comanche helicopter and try again to build it. i mean 7billion$ and 2 prototypes, thats just 3.5 billion per piece. Now if lets say 10 prototypes could be build with the laser power supply for lets say 4 billion more than the price per piece has dropped to 1/3, that sound economical to me.
Maybe not, but i think its a stupid idea. For 99% of the people the best would be a 1W thin client with no computational power. The computing centers will be more efficient in using the "unused" computational power.
to gradually improve things in gnome, i was happy because that was actually the first time i have seen that things - even small things where continuously getting better (talking about 2007-2009). In the end they really had me stopping using the terminal, something which was absurd a few years back.
But now that they decided to go the (steep) way of pushing gnome in one direction which keeps and makes it usable, but rolling out their own shit (Yes, i mean it - 11.04 made me think about switching back) and weirdly enough did not adress the obviously missing parts (e.g. pdf commenting is possible only in okular, openoffice would need a closer look by somebody who integrates it), i am extremely pessimistic.
Flatrates are stupid things. They should be forbidden. They are just a formulation for: "We will make absurd prices for metered plans so that we can scare everybody into using an oversized flatrate plan and if somebody really exceeds our usage expectations using some means, then we block (or slow down) the type of service he uses". Its maximally intransparent.
The only solution would be to only allow metered and unfiltered rates, because then the customers would have an easy time comparing the offers and it would be easy to detect a deviation from the simple (unfiltered) rule.
Believe me they will find a possibility to team up if its in the interest of everybody and fight against each other where appropriate. However, if android sinks, they all loose money. Android was a gift from heaven for most of them who ran into solutions which could not compete or had other hooks. letting them kill android would make the smart phone market a present to apple (consumers) and rim (business).
No i did not miss that point. In the end they all want to sell something. It may be a problem for google, the phone company. So maybe google stops selling own android devices.
That would not hurt at all i guess. The fact that they bought this patents together means they want to settle it friendly, since they include ios, android and qnx based phone makers, which means that these three companies probably have very far reaching agreements no to step on each others toes.
And responsible for patent violations is the one selling the phone.
Google patents are not so many. But the companies who would be immediately hurt - they hold a lot. I mean the idea of starting a all-out patent-war against Sony, HTC, Samsung, Dell, Archos, Asus and some chinese manufacturerers (many of them veterans in the PIM/mobile business), which could block a company easily from half of the markets, would be stupid. I mean sure Apple *could* bet that Sony does not find some Japan-only patents (yeah, they exist) (moreover in JP they would go against NTT...). Sure they can bet that the legal fight in intransparent judical systems are worth it.
It would be much more reasonable to compate the patent stack and pay some money and settle the thing by agreeing not to step on anybodies feet.
As far as i understand it, a mandatory health insurance system should actually reduce medicare expenses (thats how it works in many European countries and also Japan). IMHO using government money for paying for medical treatments is kind of absurd (as a system).
Money which is allocated in mandatory spending by laws is not an "dessert". Money which you need to keep troops supplied and alive is not an dessert. Wars are nothing which you can end with a single veto. Stopping social support at a time of peak unemployment (caused by a decade lost in going to economic reforms) is not an option. All these problems grew over a long time, and i am afraid the total debt its an integral of these problems.
The reality is: the mixture of ideology with the plain facts did not help. Facts are facts, and S&P also sees it this way.
I am sorry this crisis affects you life in such an incredibly bad way and i hope that you will get settled in and get along well.
I never said it was only the republicans fault. They just happened to extend the budget, for good reasons or bad ones. Its always more difficult to shrink spending than extend it. Shrinking it would mean that everybody agrees to take away something from his district.
About the bail-out: What would have been your suggestions? The course to bailout any American Company or Bank as long as it was big enough was set under Bush. And the policies (cheap money) which fueled the bubble were also done since on decade.
No it actually means they advised the adminstration to hire 20 teachers, which probably have been interviewed, and advised them to make an official competition for building the school. It would not very productive if you way of cutting is "whoever is unhappy enough to need an investment or money right now", but that is what you suggest.
The most productive long term way to cut is IMHO to continually and gradually shift budget to the state or city level and then reduce it. If a city cant compete, then close it down. My experience around me says that money is much more carelessly spend if it comes from the EU than if its a local budget. Start by cutting all subsidies and tax exemptions gradually.
One of the critical point is that S&P obviously believes that the deal made has unreasonable restrictions for future budget decisions, like the tax politics.
On the other hand i have never seen any political party so unwilling to accept (and clean up) the mess they made as the Republicans. Everybody knows the explosion of the deficit has nothing to do with Obama, it is the consequence of 2 wars at the same time started without specific goals, running over a decade, and insufficient results up to now.
So while the publically stated goals of the tea party may be understandable to me (everybody *sees* that things need to change), there is a significant difference between saying "we spend less" and "we just dont pay, even if we are obliged". The latter does not solve *any* problem (even if the right problem is stated), but destroys the trust of the insitution lending the money.
To say it in a analogy: If you have ordered something a restaurant, its not an option to say: "oh, i just dot pay this and dont eat it". Thats what they suggested. Obviouls there is significant difference to just not ordering something.
(see below) Why does synchronization have to be manual? Or is this a safety feature that the automatic synchronization decides to go offline if things get weird?
From the Article:
âoeNormally, upon dropping the utility power provided by the transformer, electrical load would be seamlessly picked up by backup generators,â Amazon said in an update on its status dashboard. âoeThe transient electric deviation caused by the explosion was large enough that it propagated to a portion of the phase control system that synchronizes the backup generator plant, disabling some of them.â
âoePower sources must be phase-synchronized before they can be brought online to load. Bringing these generators online required manual synchronization. Weâ(TM)ve now restored power to the Availability Zone and are bringing EC2 instances up.â
This guy everthing he wanted. Cameras, and millions of people wondering about his paranoid bullshit - and some people even believing they must make a live blog on what their "analysis" of this shit is. Believe me, this thing is, including all possible codes, sorted out right now by professionals, without any additional attention.
The public roads are not build for you fun. The money spent on public roads is spent to allow traffic. You are using a public good, so the public can expect you to use it as safe as possible. If you need to drive an SUV because you feel better looking down on the others and kill somebody because of this mis-estimation, its your responsibility. In the same way as an employer who does not give you the ideal and safe tools and gets you killed has responsibility for an accident which happens.
The higher risk for deaths is caused by heavier vehicles. In that case one just needs to calculate after each accident with a death or a heavy injury if it could have been prevented if everybody just drove the car they needed or if they could have reduced the speed to an level appropriate to compensate for the higher momentum (e.g. a car twice as much can drive half as fast). If these things are true, consider the death in the accident to be manslaughter by negligence, with all penal and civil consequences this has.
I can tell you, people would pretty quickly reduce the size of their car.
Slashdot Mirror
well i suggest to add "can be powered by laser" to the proposal for the Comanche helicopter and try again to build it. i mean 7billion$ and 2 prototypes, thats just 3.5 billion per piece. Now if lets say 10 prototypes could be build with the laser power supply for lets say 4 billion more than the price per piece has dropped to 1/3, that sound economical to me.
Maybe not, but i think its a stupid idea. For 99% of the people the best would be a 1W thin client with no computational power. The computing centers will be more efficient in using the "unused" computational power.
Clippy gives me a wizard on how to start a car.
As much as i understand that there is climate change, this type of speculation before analysis is exactly what the world does not need.
to gradually improve things in gnome, i was happy because that was actually the first time i have seen that things - even small things where continuously getting better (talking about 2007-2009). In the end they really had me stopping using the terminal, something which was absurd a few years back.
But now that they decided to go the (steep) way of pushing gnome in one direction which keeps and makes it usable, but rolling out their own shit (Yes, i mean it - 11.04 made me think about switching back) and weirdly enough did not adress the obviously missing parts (e.g. pdf commenting is possible only in okular, openoffice would need a closer look by somebody who integrates it), i am extremely pessimistic.
a) build a slum with nearly zero taxes
b) Build acrologies with enough police stations around
In which context and for what should it be donated?
Why not just meter it and give the user the option at which consumption he wants to stop/throttle it?
Flatrates are stupid things. They should be forbidden. They are just a formulation for: "We will make absurd prices for metered plans so that we can scare everybody into using an oversized flatrate plan and if somebody really exceeds our usage expectations using some means, then we block (or slow down) the type of service he uses". Its maximally intransparent.
The only solution would be to only allow metered and unfiltered rates, because then the customers would have an easy time comparing the offers and it would be easy to detect a deviation from the simple (unfiltered) rule.
Kim the sunglassed looking at the Sword of a Thousand Truths
Believe me they will find a possibility to team up if its in the interest of everybody and fight against each other where appropriate. However, if android sinks, they all loose money. Android was a gift from heaven for most of them who ran into solutions which could not compete or had other hooks. letting them kill android would make the smart phone market a present to apple (consumers) and rim (business).
No i did not miss that point. In the end they all want to sell something. It may be a problem for google, the phone company. So maybe google stops selling own android devices.
That would not hurt at all i guess. The fact that they bought this patents together means they want to settle it friendly, since they include ios, android and qnx based phone makers, which means that these three companies probably have very far reaching agreements no to step on each others toes.
And responsible for patent violations is the one selling the phone.
Google patents are not so many. But the companies who would be immediately hurt - they hold a lot. I mean the idea of starting a all-out patent-war against Sony, HTC, Samsung, Dell, Archos, Asus and some chinese manufacturerers (many of them veterans in the PIM/mobile business), which could block a company easily from half of the markets, would be stupid. I mean sure Apple *could* bet that Sony does not find some Japan-only patents (yeah, they exist) (moreover in JP they would go against NTT...). Sure they can bet that the legal fight in intransparent judical systems are worth it.
It would be much more reasonable to compate the patent stack and pay some money and settle the thing by agreeing not to step on anybodies feet.
As far as i understand it, a mandatory health insurance system should actually reduce medicare expenses (thats how it works in many European countries and also Japan). IMHO using government money for paying for medical treatments is kind of absurd (as a system).
Money which is allocated in mandatory spending by laws is not an "dessert". Money which you need to keep troops supplied and alive is not an dessert. Wars are nothing which you can end with a single veto. Stopping social support at a time of peak unemployment (caused by a decade lost in going to economic reforms) is not an option. All these problems grew over a long time, and i am afraid the total debt its an integral of these problems.
The reality is: the mixture of ideology with the plain facts did not help. Facts are facts, and S&P also sees it this way.
If i trick (not saying it was the case here) an employee into giving me access to something then its still me who commits the crime.
I am sorry this crisis affects you life in such an incredibly bad way and i hope that you will get settled in and get along well.
I never said it was only the republicans fault. They just happened to extend the budget, for good reasons or bad ones. Its always more difficult to shrink spending than extend it. Shrinking it would mean that everybody agrees to take away something from his district.
About the bail-out: What would have been your suggestions? The course to bailout any American Company or Bank as long as it was big enough was set under Bush. And the policies (cheap money) which fueled the bubble were also done since on decade.
No it actually means they advised the adminstration to hire 20 teachers, which probably have been interviewed, and advised them to make an official competition for building the school. It would not very productive if you way of cutting is "whoever is unhappy enough to need an investment or money right now", but that is what you suggest.
The most productive long term way to cut is IMHO to continually and gradually shift budget to the state or city level and then reduce it. If a city cant compete, then close it down. My experience around me says that money is much more carelessly spend if it comes from the EU than if its a local budget. Start by cutting all subsidies and tax exemptions gradually.
Well. a hiring conract (soldiers, techers, hospital doctors) is a contract. I am pretty sure not all of these can finish in one second.
I dont get it.
One of the critical point is that S&P obviously believes that the deal made has unreasonable restrictions for future budget decisions, like the tax politics.
On the other hand i have never seen any political party so unwilling to accept (and clean up) the mess they made as the Republicans. Everybody knows the explosion of the deficit has nothing to do with Obama, it is the consequence of 2 wars at the same time started without specific goals, running over a decade, and insufficient results up to now.
So while the publically stated goals of the tea party may be understandable to me (everybody *sees* that things need to change), there is a significant difference between saying "we spend less" and "we just dont pay, even if we are obliged". The latter does not solve *any* problem (even if the right problem is stated), but destroys the trust of the insitution lending the money.
To say it in a analogy: If you have ordered something a restaurant, its not an option to say: "oh, i just dot pay this and dont eat it". Thats what they suggested. Obviouls there is significant difference to just not ordering something.
(see below) Why does synchronization have to be manual? Or is this a safety feature that the automatic synchronization decides to go offline if things get weird?
From the Article:
âoeNormally, upon dropping the utility power provided by the transformer, electrical load would be seamlessly picked up by backup generators,â Amazon said in an update on its status dashboard. âoeThe transient electric deviation caused by the explosion was large enough that it propagated to a portion of the phase control system that synchronizes the backup generator plant, disabling some of them.â
âoePower sources must be phase-synchronized before they can be brought online to load. Bringing these generators online required manual synchronization. Weâ(TM)ve now restored power to the Availability Zone and are bringing EC2 instances up.â
Yes. Its funny.
This guy everthing he wanted. Cameras, and millions of people wondering about his paranoid bullshit - and some people even believing they must make a live blog on what their "analysis" of this shit is. Believe me, this thing is, including all possible codes, sorted out right now by professionals, without any additional attention.
To me it seems more like that past.
If they reach $200000 for a project which is a prominent as seti, then i can say: no.
The public roads are not build for you fun. The money spent on public roads is spent to allow traffic. You are using a public good, so the public can expect you to use it as safe as possible. If you need to drive an SUV because you feel better looking down on the others and kill somebody because of this mis-estimation, its your responsibility. In the same way as an employer who does not give you the ideal and safe tools and gets you killed has responsibility for an accident which happens.
The higher risk for deaths is caused by heavier vehicles. In that case one just needs to calculate after each accident with a death or a heavy injury if it could have been prevented if everybody just drove the car they needed or if they could have reduced the speed to an level appropriate to compensate for the higher momentum (e.g. a car twice as much can drive half as fast). If these things are true, consider the death in the accident to be manslaughter by negligence, with all penal and civil consequences this has.
I can tell you, people would pretty quickly reduce the size of their car.