The conservation options that are available now for homes aren't a sacrifice, people just don't get around to them, or don't know about them. In order to think that conservation requires sacrifice, you have to assume that people are perfectly rational actors and have perfect information. That's not true in practice. In reality, people run ancient air conditioners, refrigerators, hot water heaters, have poorly insulated houses, use inefficient lighting, etc etc. In many many cases, fixing these things pay for themselves in just a few years. The sort of double digit returns you can get on these things yield double digit returns that can't be had in investment markets. In many cases, it's actually economically advantageous even to put these things on a credit card, as their return is greater than even a very high interest rate. People just don't do them because most people can't really do the math on them, or don't think long-term enough, or they simply don't think of them. That's why a public education campaign, or other encouragement is necessary for the economy to operate optimally.
I think you might be confused. There were proposals to make the structure of the shuttle from titanium, but I have never heard of a Titanium TPS or cover. Using Titanium for the structure would have made the TPS simpler because Titanium can absorb more heat and stays strong at higher temperatures. Do you have a source for this?
The SR-71 operates at Mach 3 and gets extremely hot, requiring special materials and active cooling. The shuttle reenters at over Mach 20. The point of the tiles is certainly not to draw heat in -- it's to insulate the shuttle. The top surface of the tiles gets extremely hot and radiates the heat away rather than conducting it into the shuttle where it would melt the structure.
Blame the lack of necessity. I can travel in the U.S. and Canada, an area about the size of Europe, and except for small enclaves, everyone will know English. On the other hand, a French person is unlikely to be able to travel more than a few hundred miles before he needs to speak another language to blend in with the culture.
This is wrong. Individual neurons can do a lot more than you think. To simulate them you need to solve the cable equation, and there is other complication in how signals interact in the dendritic tree. Then you have short term potentiation and hebbian effects to deal with, plus a bunch of stuff I don't understand. You're not going to be able to get a real simulation of a neuron in 228 instructions/sec. If you're interested in how neurons actually work, I would highly recommend the book "Biophysics of Computation: Information Processing in Single Neurons."
If the battery is replaceable, it's reasonable to say "the device lasts 8 hours on a battery", because the statement is about what the device can do, namely, last eight hours with a certain battery in a certain condition. If the battery isn't replacable, you have to treat the device and the battery as a single entity, so now you're saying, "the device lasts 8 hours when it is new", rather than saying "the device lasts 8 hours when the battery is new."
When you buy a laptop, when the battery stops working well, you can buy another battery, or use AC. I know on my laptop it explicitly states that the battery is considered a "consumable" item, and it can be easily replaced, just like a toner cartrige. In an ipod, however, until Apple started their exchange program, there was no way to replace the battery, and the ipod is really designed for mobile use, so effectively, you just had to buy a new one after the battery ran low.
They don't have to hire H1Bs in order to benefit from the cap going up. If there's more aggregate supply of programmers, the market price will go down overall. There's a sub-market for U.S. citizens, but as long as the number of jobs that require citizenship is much less than the number of programmers with citizenship, the U.S. programmers won't even go at a significant premium.
It's not at all clear that government is less efficient in a natural monopoly setting than private competition. Take electricity for example. It costs twice as much to run two sets of wires to every house, so simply from the standpoint of construction and maintence, private competition is going to cost twice as much to operate. Now even though it costs twice as much to operate, consumers might pay less in that scenario than an unregulated monopoly which would simply charge what the market will bear. A municipal utility, on the other hand, will build the infrastructure once, and charge it out at cost. The only way it could be beaten by private competition is if the private companes managed to be more than twice as efficient as the government. If you're building a municipal Wi-Fi network, most of the same issues apply. If you have private competition, you have to build the Wi-Fi network at least twice to have any competition at all.
1) The purpose of the federal government is not the issue here. It is a given that the NIH funds medical research. The only question is which types of medical research they fund. If Bush were proposing to abolish the NIH, or cut stem cell funding for monetary reasons, this would be an issue, but that's not the reason he restricted stem cell research
2) Gray Davis was not recalled over stem cells. The stem cell initiative passed, and Arnold, who won the election supported it.
3) Again, not relevant -- the issue is which projects the NIH should fund, not the availability of private money.
4) It is the job of scientists and administrators at NIH to make funding decisions based on scientific grounds. Since stem cell funding was restricted by the Dickey Ammendment (Republican) in 1995, Clinton had been working on NIH regulations to allow stem cell research. When the NIH was about ready to come out with the regulations, Bush decided to put in the additional restriction that there would be no funding for lines created after the announcement. Had the Clinton plan been followed through in the natural way under a Gore administration, there is no question that new lines would have been allowed. Government funds always come with restrictions, the question is which restrictions are placed on them. The restrictions Bush placed on stem cell funding are unwarranted and religiously motivated.
Those are some nice republican talking points. Meanwhile, look at the situation. Most early stage medical research is funded by the NIH in the U.S. The lines that are eligible funding are practically useless due to viral contamination. Thus, for all practical purposes, the major source of potential funding for embryonic stem cell research has been cut off. Bush's ban was clearly religiously motivated, and I know of no non-religious person that thinks a clump of cells has moral status.
What the actual effect of Bush's ban has had is to push funding for this research to the states, which is highly inefficient, because now you have professors moving to different universities in order to be eligible for state funding. Furthermore, you have state politicians trying to decide how much funding this research should get, in a completely uncoordinated manner. Also, you now have some citizens paying taxes for research that benefits the entire country, while others get a free ride.
This would not have happened under a Clinton, Gore, or Kerry administration, and the ethical objections are certainly not held by a majority of the population.
They could easily charge the users for the service and recover their costs. You may have lots of libertarian reasoning, but the empirical fact is that municipal utilities cost less. I live in Austin, TX, where we have municipal electricty. I pay far less for electricity than other big cities in Texas because of it, and there is no taxpayer subsidy. Other cities that have municipal water, cable television, gas, and internet service pay far less, and without taxpayer subsidy than cities that don't. If you look at the statistics, it's clear that there are huge market failures in the provision of utility service, and government, for all its supposed inefficiencies simply does a better job.
In a big city, you're going to get worse performance from Wi-Max due to the shared bandwidth over a large area. Telcos are already deploying comparable technology, in the form of EV-DO. Verizon has this running already in a number of cities, and it's great. The only problem is that it's $80 a month. This could be provided by the government for far less, and would be a great advantage to living in the area.
How is Wi-Max the right technology? The technology isn't even available yet, virtually every laptop already has Wi-Fi, and cards are cheap. Furthermore, Wi-Max doesn't provide enough bandwidth for the number of users this type of thing will get. This is Chicago, a big city. A few hundred megabits shared isn't going to cut it, so you have to make the footprint for each cell small in order to use the spectrum efficiently enough.
The fact that they are foreign doesn't really provide any real assurance. Do a search for Crypto AG sometime. The NSA has set up front companies in the past to sell comprimised crypto equipment.
That's not exactly true. Several governments have investigated the possiblity of making bombs from mixed-isotope Pu. It is possible. However even the best designs have a chance of a fizzle due to premature fission when the critical mass is being compressed. Making a bomb from power grade Pu is definitely quite a bit harder than making one out of pure Pu-239, which is harder than making one out of Uranium.
You just made that up. There is no such rule. You can use flight simulators to log certain hours for certain ratings and certificates, but they all have to be at least what the FAA calls a "PCATD", which MSFS is not certified for. Even flight simulators that qualifiy as PCATDs need to have a lot of special hardware that looks like the real instrument panel of a plane in order to qualify.
I once worked for an ISP that massively abused this feature. They had about 20 cell phones, all set to forward to their main hunt group. The brilliant part was that there was no limit to the number of simultaneous calls that could be forwarded from a single phone number, and it even worked across LATA boundaries. This sort of service would otherwise have been very expensive, as at the time, and I believe now, running a T1 across a LATA boundary required provisioning multiple segments, each at around $1k a month. This gave them 20 virtual POPs, covering a significant chunk of the state, for only a few hundred dollars a month. At some point I believe cell phone companies instituted a per-minute charge for forwarding, and that was the end of that.
Slashdot Mirror
The conservation options that are available now for homes aren't a sacrifice, people just don't get around to them, or don't know about them. In order to think that conservation requires sacrifice, you have to assume that people are perfectly rational actors and have perfect information. That's not true in practice. In reality, people run ancient air conditioners, refrigerators, hot water heaters, have poorly insulated houses, use inefficient lighting, etc etc. In many many cases, fixing these things pay for themselves in just a few years. The sort of double digit returns you can get on these things yield double digit returns that can't be had in investment markets. In many cases, it's actually economically advantageous even to put these things on a credit card, as their return is greater than even a very high interest rate. People just don't do them because most people can't really do the math on them, or don't think long-term enough, or they simply don't think of them. That's why a public education campaign, or other encouragement is necessary for the economy to operate optimally.
I think you might be confused. There were proposals to make the structure of the shuttle from titanium, but I have never heard of a Titanium TPS or cover. Using Titanium for the structure would have made the TPS simpler because Titanium can absorb more heat and stays strong at higher temperatures. Do you have a source for this?
The SR-71 operates at Mach 3 and gets extremely hot, requiring special materials and active cooling. The shuttle reenters at over Mach 20. The point of the tiles is certainly not to draw heat in -- it's to insulate the shuttle. The top surface of the tiles gets extremely hot and radiates the heat away rather than conducting it into the shuttle where it would melt the structure.
Blame the lack of necessity. I can travel in the U.S. and Canada, an area about the size of Europe, and except for small enclaves, everyone will know English. On the other hand, a French person is unlikely to be able to travel more than a few hundred miles before he needs to speak another language to blend in with the culture.
This is wrong. Individual neurons can do a lot more than you think. To simulate them you need to solve the cable equation, and there is other complication in how signals interact in the dendritic tree. Then you have short term potentiation and hebbian effects to deal with, plus a bunch of stuff I don't understand. You're not going to be able to get a real simulation of a neuron in 228 instructions/sec. If you're interested in how neurons actually work, I would highly recommend the book "Biophysics of Computation: Information Processing in Single Neurons."
If the battery is replaceable, it's reasonable to say "the device lasts 8 hours on a battery", because the statement is about what the device can do, namely, last eight hours with a certain battery in a certain condition. If the battery isn't replacable, you have to treat the device and the battery as a single entity, so now you're saying, "the device lasts 8 hours when it is new", rather than saying "the device lasts 8 hours when the battery is new."
When you buy a laptop, when the battery stops working well, you can buy another battery, or use AC. I know on my laptop it explicitly states that the battery is considered a "consumable" item, and it can be easily replaced, just like a toner cartrige. In an ipod, however, until Apple started their exchange program, there was no way to replace the battery, and the ipod is really designed for mobile use, so effectively, you just had to buy a new one after the battery ran low.
No, but a U-Boat could.
They don't have to hire H1Bs in order to benefit from the cap going up. If there's more aggregate supply of programmers, the market price will go down overall. There's a sub-market for U.S. citizens, but as long as the number of jobs that require citizenship is much less than the number of programmers with citizenship, the U.S. programmers won't even go at a significant premium.
Can you explain how to get EDGE for $15 a month?
IBM has a key remapping utility for windows that is helpful for this. I remapped the right alt key (which I never use) to a windows key.
It's not at all clear that government is less efficient in a natural monopoly setting than private competition. Take electricity for example. It costs twice as much to run two sets of wires to every house, so simply from the standpoint of construction and maintence, private competition is going to cost twice as much to operate. Now even though it costs twice as much to operate, consumers might pay less in that scenario than an unregulated monopoly which would simply charge what the market will bear. A municipal utility, on the other hand, will build the infrastructure once, and charge it out at cost. The only way it could be beaten by private competition is if the private companes managed to be more than twice as efficient as the government. If you're building a municipal Wi-Fi network, most of the same issues apply. If you have private competition, you have to build the Wi-Fi network at least twice to have any competition at all.
1) The purpose of the federal government is not the issue here. It is a given that the NIH funds medical research. The only question is which types of medical research they fund. If Bush were proposing to abolish the NIH, or cut stem cell funding for monetary reasons, this would be an issue, but that's not the reason he restricted stem cell research
2) Gray Davis was not recalled over stem cells. The stem cell initiative passed, and Arnold, who won the election supported it.
3) Again, not relevant -- the issue is which projects the NIH should fund, not the availability of private money.
4) It is the job of scientists and administrators at NIH to make funding decisions based on scientific grounds. Since stem cell funding was restricted by the Dickey Ammendment (Republican) in 1995, Clinton had been working on NIH regulations to allow stem cell research. When the NIH was about ready to come out with the regulations, Bush decided to put in the additional restriction that there would be no funding for lines created after the announcement. Had the Clinton plan been followed through in the natural way under a Gore administration, there is no question that new lines would have been allowed. Government funds always come with restrictions, the question is which restrictions are placed on them. The restrictions Bush placed on stem cell funding are unwarranted and religiously motivated.
Those are some nice republican talking points. Meanwhile, look at the situation. Most early stage medical research is funded by the NIH in the U.S. The lines that are eligible funding are practically useless due to viral contamination. Thus, for all practical purposes, the major source of potential funding for embryonic stem cell research has been cut off. Bush's ban was clearly religiously motivated, and I know of no non-religious person that thinks a clump of cells has moral status.
What the actual effect of Bush's ban has had is to push funding for this research to the states, which is highly inefficient, because now you have professors moving to different universities in order to be eligible for state funding. Furthermore, you have state politicians trying to decide how much funding this research should get, in a completely uncoordinated manner. Also, you now have some citizens paying taxes for research that benefits the entire country, while others get a free ride.
This would not have happened under a Clinton, Gore, or Kerry administration, and the ethical objections are certainly not held by a majority of the population.
They could easily charge the users for the service and recover their costs. You may have lots of libertarian reasoning, but the empirical fact is that municipal utilities cost less. I live in Austin, TX, where we have municipal electricty. I pay far less for electricity than other big cities in Texas because of it, and there is no taxpayer subsidy. Other cities that have municipal water, cable television, gas, and internet service pay far less, and without taxpayer subsidy than cities that don't. If you look at the statistics, it's clear that there are huge market failures in the provision of utility service, and government, for all its supposed inefficiencies simply does a better job.
In a big city, you're going to get worse performance from Wi-Max due to the shared bandwidth over a large area. Telcos are already deploying comparable technology, in the form of EV-DO. Verizon has this running already in a number of cities, and it's great. The only problem is that it's $80 a month. This could be provided by the government for far less, and would be a great advantage to living in the area.
How is Wi-Max the right technology? The technology isn't even available yet, virtually every laptop already has Wi-Fi, and cards are cheap. Furthermore, Wi-Max doesn't provide enough bandwidth for the number of users this type of thing will get. This is Chicago, a big city. A few hundred megabits shared isn't going to cut it, so you have to make the footprint for each cell small in order to use the spectrum efficiently enough.
The fact that they are foreign doesn't really provide any real assurance. Do a search for Crypto AG sometime. The NSA has set up front companies in the past to sell comprimised crypto equipment.
You've never played go. There are 19x19 intersections.
Latency and jitter on GPRS are terrible.
That's not exactly true. Several governments have investigated the possiblity of making bombs from mixed-isotope Pu. It is possible. However even the best designs have a chance of a fizzle due to premature fission when the critical mass is being compressed. Making a bomb from power grade Pu is definitely quite a bit harder than making one out of pure Pu-239, which is harder than making one out of Uranium.
You just made that up. There is no such rule. You can use flight simulators to log certain hours for certain ratings and certificates, but they all have to be at least what the FAA calls a "PCATD", which MSFS is not certified for. Even flight simulators that qualifiy as PCATDs need to have a lot of special hardware that looks like the real instrument panel of a plane in order to qualify.
I once worked for an ISP that massively abused this feature. They had about 20 cell phones, all set to forward to their main hunt group. The brilliant part was that there was no limit to the number of simultaneous calls that could be forwarded from a single phone number, and it even worked across LATA boundaries. This sort of service would otherwise have been very expensive, as at the time, and I believe now, running a T1 across a LATA boundary required provisioning multiple segments, each at around $1k a month. This gave them 20 virtual POPs, covering a significant chunk of the state, for only a few hundred dollars a month. At some point I believe cell phone companies instituted a per-minute charge for forwarding, and that was the end of that.
He probably means the microtac -- which was before the startac.
Is that really an accurate formula? With a 10k element array you only can discriminate 18 clients?