My experiments convince me that third-order distortion products generated by a triplet of strong broadband signals from nearby TVBD radiating 4 watts may cause loss of DTV reception on any of a large number of channels. This interference mechanism is not recognized by the FCC as a significant threat to DTV reception.
I think it is lunacy to try to share a "dumb broadcast" band with tens of millions unlicensed, uncoordinated agile devices because of all the intermodulation and distortion product issues (which we have to deal with already between existing DTV transmitters). You should have all dumb or all agile on a single band.
As of 2007, 14% of all U.S. television households, or 15.36 million, rely on over-the-air broadcasts for their TV viewing. I suspect this number hasn't changed much, as any loss from the DTV transition has probably been made up for by people dropping cable/DBS for free OTA TV due to the economy.
I live in Brazil and you can't even begin an auto repairshop with this money here
Moreover, doing business in Brazil is tough. To register a company takes an average of 120 days and a cost of 6.9% of income per capita. Construction permits average 411 days and 50% of income per capita. Fixed-term employee contracts are prohibited for permanent tasks. Required paid annual vacation for an employee with 20 years of service is 26 working days. The notice period for redundancy dismissal after 20 years of continuous employment is 4.3 weeks, redundancy pay would be 33.3 weeks of pay, and the penalty for redundancy dismissal is 8.3 weeks of pay.
In Mexico, it is easier to start a company than in Brazil, but the restrictions on firing workers is much tougher.
In the US, there are almost no regulations on hiring or firing workers (as long as you are non-discriminatory). I hope the rest of the world doesn't boycott us until we get their level of labor regulations!
This is due to reducing taxes on the rich, tax loopholes for the rich, wages not keeping up with inflation, decrease in benefits for American workers,
1) Despite marginal top tax rates of >90% until the Kennedy tax cut of 1964, the effective tax rate for the richest one 1% of households was 32.2% in 1952 going down to 24.6% in 1963. After the Kennedy tax cuts, effective tax rates for the richest 1% rose to 28.9% until Ronald Reagan took office and declining to 22.1% following the 1986 tax reductions.
The interpretation is massive tax avoidance and outright fraud by the richest 1% during the post-war years to avoid the 90%+ top marginal tax rates. The IRS did not have computers to track down the rich, nor was there much support in the executive branch to do so, nor in the judicial branch to effectively support the high tax rates.
2) Total employee compensation HAS kept up with inflation. The issue is that compensation is being moved from taxable wages to tax-avoiding benefits. We have to blame WWII-era law that made employee-paid health care tax free. Over time as medical technology improved and became more and more utilized, this tax loophole has forced a linkage between health care and employers, which we don't see with auto insurance, for example. Over the past forty years US compensation per hour and productivity per hour have moved up almost in unison.
3) And benefits are not going down, they are going up, especially health care.
To put a number on it, US private industry employers spent an average of $27.64 per hour worked for employee compensation in June 2010. Wages and salaries averaged $19.53 per hour worked and accounted for 70.6% of these costs, while benefits averaged $8.11 and accounted for the remaining 29.4%.
He seems to be talking about replacing a manual assembly line in China with an automated/robotic assembly line in the US.
And this is exactly what we've been seeing. US manufacturing production (in terms of dollars of product produced) was at an all-time high in 2008. However the number of manufacturing workers was at its 80-year low point. US manufacturing workers, armed with machines and robots, are becoming more and productive per worker.
This mirrors what we saw in agriculture, from most of the country working in agriculture in the late 1800's, to only 2% of Americans working in agriculture today, while producing more food overall! Powered tractors, plows, GPS aided fertilizer treatment, herbicides and pesticides dramatically increased agricultural productivity.
Ford wanted his workers to have a living wage, to be able to afford the products they made.
That may be the public messaging/myth, but closer analysis shows that Ford simply wanted to reduce turnover, and also to increase productivity by linking the wage increase to learning English, as well as their steering clear of alcohol and gambling (monitored in workers homes, no less...)
Moreover, Ford did not employ enough workers for their wage hike to have a significant impact on his own sales.
That said, wages in China are rising, cutting Flextronics' profits and forcing Foxconn to move more factories away from the high-cost coastal areas of China.
Foxconn doubled base-wages for employees in Shenzhen in June, where it has around half its 900,000 workers, but said it would cut the headcount there by about 170,000 over five years.
Seems like a large about of people aren't arguing it as a science, they are arguing it as a religion. What I mean is you are demanded to believe all of it, everything, including all the policy recommendations, without question.
It is really four different issues:
1) Detecting anthropogenic global warming (AGW) - likely provable (probably already proven) by science 2) Predicting effects due to AGW - likely predictable by science with large error bars 3) Predicting the effects of anthropogenic behavior changes on AGW effects (if we cut CO2/methane emissions by x, we get y result) - possibly predictable by science with even larger error bars 4) Predicting which government policies are likely to actually reduce AGW effects - unlikely to be precise because it multiplies global political science x economics x #3. Not likely greater than chance to result in benefits>costs policies.
network neutrality has NOTHING to do with free speech laws...Network neutrality only means that a network operator should treat packets the same regardless of source, meaning no "preferred service"
What if a network operator would like to censor the speech of certain sources by dropping (or slowing) their packets? For example, a provider may decide that YouTube has a lot of videos that are "dangerous to kids", but that MainstreamMediaNetwork video site doesn't, so it blocks YouTube?
What I find most interesting about this craft is that it is powered by four small electric motors.
There are a lot of interesting designs of future electric or hybrid aircraft powered by a large number of small electric motors. They are just as efficient as one large electric motor, but can be distributed in fashion that aids aerodynamics and reduces propeller noise.
You may be correct that News Corp may be an Australian corporation
Except you are wrong, as per Wikipedia, "News Corporation is a publicly-traded company listed on the NASDAQ, with secondary listings on the Australian Securities Exchange. Formerly incorporated in South Australia, the company was re-incorporated under Delaware General Corporation Law after a majority of shareholders approved the move on November 12, 2004...News Corporation's global headquarters is...[on]Avenue of the Americas (Sixth Ave.), in New York City."
I'm just saying that the statement "We had 91% tax rates and did fine" should be "We had 91% top marginal tax rates which most of the rich were able to avoid (they only paid 20-30%), and did fine"
You could certainly try to get rid of the loopholes and have a 91% top marginal tax rate, but that would be an untested economic experiment. But hey, its just people's lives you are playing with!
I am seeing four things in the skilled sector right now:
1) People can't afford to relocate because they are underwater in their mortgages, and don't want to leave a house to rent an apartment.
2) Businesses don't feel they can pay high rates because of the current economic situation (as well as uncertainty about future personnel costs due to health reform), so they are getting applicants who want more money than budgeted since their last job payed more, but the companies know if they hire those people cheap, they will leave as soon as the economy picks up.
3) Typical lack of truly skilled and experienced people in niche fields, but companies feel they can't afford to train people right now.
4) And hiring is going slowly because you don't want to blow money hiring the wrong person, and since firing people into a 10% unemployment situation is a bit harsh, but also companies can keep people on the hook for months of a hiring process because it isn't like they are going to be hired somewhere else.
Some of this is of course stupid, but some of it is based on rational concerns.
Let's go back to the 90% marginal tax rate on the highest earners we had in the 50s. The system worked better for them, they should pay more because they got more from society.
Brownlee helpfully provides estimates of the historical effective rates for the richest one percent of households as well. He indicates that effective rates during the high marginal rate years of World War I reached 15.8%, and that during the high marginal rate years of World War II they reached an astonishing 58.6% in 1944.9
After the war, while the top marginal rate remained extremely high at 91%, the effective rate for the rich declined to 32.2% in 1952, then 24.6% in 1963, rising to 28.9% when Ronald Reagan took office and declining to 22.1% following the 1986 tax reductions.
The conclusion drawn by Brownlee is that the rich can be taxed at very high effective rates during times of national emergency, but that at other times their political clout ensures that effective rates are much lower than marginal rates.
Let's go back to the 90% marginal tax rate on the highest earners we had in the 50s. The system worked better for them, they should pay more because they got more from society.
I have a feeling that most of the income of those with incomes taxed at 90% rate was tax avoided through loopholes (including taking income through corporations) or pure fraud in the pre-computerized era.
In doing some reading, I also recognize now that "background blur" is enhanced by more magnification of the background, which comes from the ability to use longer lenses.
This results in the background looking more blurred despite having the same "depth of field".
H.264 is not some interloping monopolist, it's a real honest-to-goodness vendor-neutral open standard.
And (theoretically) all the intellectual property in H.264 is available in a RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) license.
However lot of people are DELUDING themselves into believing that other less-popular codec systems do not have any intellectual property infringements, when it is possible they fall under unknown, non-RAND intellectual property claims.
Slashdot Mirror
How long before a hacker mods one of these to broadcast on frequencies that it should not be using?
This isn't the real problem, TV band Broadband Devices (TVBD) will cause problems as described in this article:
My experiments convince me that third-order distortion products generated by a triplet of strong broadband signals from nearby TVBD radiating 4 watts may cause loss of DTV reception on any of a large number of channels. This interference mechanism is not recognized by the FCC as a significant threat to DTV reception.
I think it is lunacy to try to share a "dumb broadcast" band with tens of millions unlicensed, uncoordinated agile devices because of all the intermodulation and distortion product issues (which we have to deal with already between existing DTV transmitters). You should have all dumb or all agile on a single band.
TV signals are a waste of bandwidth...
As of 2007, 14% of all U.S. television households, or 15.36 million, rely on over-the-air broadcasts for their TV viewing. I suspect this number hasn't changed much, as any loss from the DTV transition has probably been made up for by people dropping cable/DBS for free OTA TV due to the economy.
The Mini2440 is $109.95 with screen, $89.95 without screen.
Boots with Linux/busybox/Qtopia. You can also add Emdebian to it.
Manufacturing may return to the west but jobs won't be.
You got it - which is why we should be happy that we have "service jobs" in Cupertino designing iPhones!
I live in Brazil and you can't even begin an auto repairshop with this money here
Moreover, doing business in Brazil is tough. To register a company takes an average of 120 days and a cost of 6.9% of income per capita. Construction permits average 411 days and 50% of income per capita. Fixed-term employee contracts are prohibited for permanent tasks. Required paid annual vacation for an employee with 20 years of service is 26 working days. The notice period for redundancy dismissal after 20 years of continuous employment is 4.3 weeks, redundancy pay would be 33.3 weeks of pay, and the penalty for redundancy dismissal is 8.3 weeks of pay.
In Mexico, it is easier to start a company than in Brazil, but the restrictions on firing workers is much tougher.
In the US, there are almost no regulations on hiring or firing workers (as long as you are non-discriminatory). I hope the rest of the world doesn't boycott us until we get their level of labor regulations!
This is due to reducing taxes on the rich, tax loopholes for the rich, wages not keeping up with inflation, decrease in benefits for American workers,
1) Despite marginal top tax rates of >90% until the Kennedy tax cut of 1964, the effective tax rate for the richest one 1% of households was 32.2% in 1952 going down to 24.6% in 1963. After the Kennedy tax cuts, effective tax rates for the richest 1% rose to 28.9% until Ronald Reagan took office and declining to 22.1% following the 1986 tax reductions.
The interpretation is massive tax avoidance and outright fraud by the richest 1% during the post-war years to avoid the 90%+ top marginal tax rates. The IRS did not have computers to track down the rich, nor was there much support in the executive branch to do so, nor in the judicial branch to effectively support the high tax rates.
2) Total employee compensation HAS kept up with inflation. The issue is that compensation is being moved from taxable wages to tax-avoiding benefits. We have to blame WWII-era law that made employee-paid health care tax free. Over time as medical technology improved and became more and more utilized, this tax loophole has forced a linkage between health care and employers, which we don't see with auto insurance, for example. Over the past forty years US compensation per hour and productivity per hour have moved up almost in unison.
3) And benefits are not going down, they are going up, especially health care.
To put a number on it, US private industry employers spent an average of $27.64 per hour worked for employee compensation in June 2010. Wages and salaries averaged $19.53 per hour worked and accounted for 70.6% of these costs, while benefits averaged $8.11 and accounted for the remaining 29.4%.
He seems to be talking about replacing a manual assembly line in China with an automated/robotic assembly line in the US.
And this is exactly what we've been seeing. US manufacturing production (in terms of dollars of product produced) was at an all-time high in 2008. However the number of manufacturing workers was at its 80-year low point. US manufacturing workers, armed with machines and robots, are becoming more and productive per worker.
This mirrors what we saw in agriculture, from most of the country working in agriculture in the late 1800's, to only 2% of Americans working in agriculture today, while producing more food overall! Powered tractors, plows, GPS aided fertilizer treatment, herbicides and pesticides dramatically increased agricultural productivity.
Ford wanted his workers to have a living wage, to be able to afford the products they made.
That may be the public messaging/myth, but closer analysis shows that Ford simply wanted to reduce turnover, and also to increase productivity by linking the wage increase to learning English, as well as their steering clear of alcohol and gambling (monitored in workers homes, no less...)
Moreover, Ford did not employ enough workers for their wage hike to have a significant impact on his own sales.
That said, wages in China are rising, cutting Flextronics' profits and forcing Foxconn to move more factories away from the high-cost coastal areas of China.
Foxconn doubled base-wages for employees in Shenzhen in June, where it has around half its 900,000 workers, but said it would cut the headcount there by about 170,000 over five years.
Seems like a large about of people aren't arguing it as a science, they are arguing it as a religion. What I mean is you are demanded to believe all of it, everything, including all the policy recommendations, without question.
It is really four different issues:
1) Detecting anthropogenic global warming (AGW) - likely provable (probably already proven) by science
2) Predicting effects due to AGW - likely predictable by science with large error bars
3) Predicting the effects of anthropogenic behavior changes on AGW effects (if we cut CO2/methane emissions by x, we get y result) - possibly predictable by science with even larger error bars
4) Predicting which government policies are likely to actually reduce AGW effects - unlikely to be precise because it multiplies global political science x economics x #3. Not likely greater than chance to result in benefits>costs policies.
network neutrality has NOTHING to do with free speech laws...Network neutrality only means that a network operator should treat packets the same regardless of source, meaning no "preferred service"
What if a network operator would like to censor the speech of certain sources by dropping (or slowing) their packets? For example, a provider may decide that YouTube has a lot of videos that are "dangerous to kids", but that MainstreamMediaNetwork video site doesn't, so it blocks YouTube?
What I find most interesting about this craft is that it is powered by four small electric motors.
There are a lot of interesting designs of future electric or hybrid aircraft powered by a large number of small electric motors. They are just as efficient as one large electric motor, but can be distributed in fashion that aids aerodynamics and reduces propeller noise.
You may be correct that News Corp may be an Australian corporation
Except you are wrong, as per Wikipedia, "News Corporation is a publicly-traded company listed on the NASDAQ, with secondary listings on the Australian Securities Exchange. Formerly incorporated in South Australia, the company was re-incorporated under Delaware General Corporation Law after a majority of shareholders approved the move on November 12, 2004...News Corporation's global headquarters is...[on]Avenue of the Americas (Sixth Ave.), in New York City."
Okay, so we get rid of the loopholes too.
I'm just saying that the statement "We had 91% tax rates and did fine" should be "We had 91% top marginal tax rates which most of the rich were able to avoid (they only paid 20-30%), and did fine"
You could certainly try to get rid of the loopholes and have a 91% top marginal tax rate, but that would be an untested economic experiment. But hey, its just people's lives you are playing with!
Well, I suppose one could argue working with character encodings isn't universal, but I think it's pretty darn close.
Perhaps they figure that someone who only speaks Russian or Persian should not be clicking on the button to fire the missiles...
You seem to be under the delusion that corporations pay tax.
US C-corporations payed $225 billion in corporate income tax in 2009. But you are right, actually their consumers payed the tax :)
Slow to hire?... If you're in the Carolinas...
I am seeing four things in the skilled sector right now:
1) People can't afford to relocate because they are underwater in their mortgages, and don't want to leave a house to rent an apartment.
2) Businesses don't feel they can pay high rates because of the current economic situation (as well as uncertainty about future personnel costs due to health reform), so they are getting applicants who want more money than budgeted since their last job payed more, but the companies know if they hire those people cheap, they will leave as soon as the economy picks up.
3) Typical lack of truly skilled and experienced people in niche fields, but companies feel they can't afford to train people right now.
4) And hiring is going slowly because you don't want to blow money hiring the wrong person, and since firing people into a 10% unemployment situation is a bit harsh, but also companies can keep people on the hook for months of a hiring process because it isn't like they are going to be hired somewhere else.
Some of this is of course stupid, but some of it is based on rational concerns.
Let's go back to the 90% marginal tax rate on the highest earners we had in the 50s. The system worked better for them, they should pay more because they got more from society.
I decided to do some research on that, and found:
Brownlee helpfully provides estimates of the historical effective rates for the richest one percent of households as well. He indicates that effective rates during the high marginal rate years of World War I reached 15.8%, and that during the high marginal rate years of World War II they reached an astonishing 58.6% in 1944.9
After the war, while the top marginal rate remained extremely high at 91%, the effective rate for the rich declined to 32.2% in 1952, then 24.6% in 1963, rising to 28.9% when Ronald Reagan took office and declining to 22.1% following the 1986 tax reductions.
The conclusion drawn by Brownlee is that the rich can be taxed at very high effective rates during times of national emergency, but that at other times their political clout ensures that effective rates are much lower than marginal rates.
Let's go back to the 90% marginal tax rate on the highest earners we had in the 50s. The system worked better for them, they should pay more because they got more from society.
I have a feeling that most of the income of those with incomes taxed at 90% rate was tax avoided through loopholes (including taking income through corporations) or pure fraud in the pre-computerized era.
even if you're at the worst case scenario for grid power, you're still doing better than an internal combustion engine with gasoline.
Indeed...
Tesla Roadster 40 miles = 11.2 kWh
Coal power generation is about 1.4 pounds of CO2 per kWh electricity delivered to the home.
internal combustion engine-powered 40 miles @ 25 mpg =1.6 US gallons
CO2 emissions from a gallon of gasoline = 19.4 pounds/gallon
Tesla= 15.6 pounds CO2, internal combustion = 31 pounds CO2.
Oil rigs burn/explode because there is no much natural gas in the oil.
Do a Google News search on "propane explosion", and you will see 21,900 hits. There is one all the time, like this one yesterday.
Or 15,700 hits from 1980 until today for "natural gas explosion", like this pipeline explosion that killed 3.
If your car is electric and you live in the US, chances are that most of its electricity is produced by CO2 emitting coal burning power plants...
In doing some reading, I also recognize now that "background blur" is enhanced by more magnification of the background, which comes from the ability to use longer lenses.
This results in the background looking more blurred despite having the same "depth of field".
The large sensor gives you long focal lengths, which give you small depth of field, which is extremely important for cinema.
I never understood this - if you want small depth of field, why not just open up the aperture?
Without that information we have no idea if this is a far greater risk or a far lesser risk.
Evidently this happens at gasoline stations as well: ...Police have identified a man killed by an underground explosion at a gas station in Stone Mountain...
H.264 is not some interloping monopolist, it's a real honest-to-goodness vendor-neutral open standard.
And (theoretically) all the intellectual property in H.264 is available in a RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) license.
However lot of people are DELUDING themselves into believing that other less-popular codec systems do not have any intellectual property infringements, when it is possible they fall under unknown, non-RAND intellectual property claims.