You are correct, of course, on the details, but I would say that you're wrong on the principle. You have two meaningful choices on your presidential ballot (e.g. candidates who can win). It's like getting search choices of Yahoo, Google, and then a bunch of other sites like Altavista.
Slashdot nerd: "The sex detection part is some fairly trivial signal processing. You need a band pass filter with a passband of about 0.5-3 Hz (at a guess; better numbers exist, but I haven't tried googling them). Then you need to detect extended signal within that band; there are a variety of options for this, any of which are likely to work."
Normal person: "obviously this is a big joke, since he doesn't have to prove to anyone that he's done anything more than set up a Twitter account."
Two thoughts:
1) This is a great explanation of why bandwidth-constrained networks have limits and why a wireless/cable/DSL network can never really offer unlimited service.
2) I'm not sure if FiOS operates under such escalating cost structure. My understanding is that the capacity of the cable is ridiculous, and that it's only on the ends that you have to upgrade.
Wrong end. When you're talking about something that needs to use a network to be useful, you've got to start at the network. The device is the LEAST important part. As long as the phone company gets to say what does or does not run on their network the devices will do what they need to meet those requirements.
It's kind of funny actually - Apple releases a closed phone but doesn't sick [sic] the lawyers on any of the hackers. Google releases an "open" phone but does sick [sic] the lawyers on the hackers.
First time I've ever been able to show the replacement word and the error notation in the same brackets.
-Grammar Nazi
First, who spends the time digging through the Congressional Record for this kind of stuff? Congress considers thousands of ideas every year, from the brilliant (health care reform) to the idiotic (Bridges to Nowhere). Most are DOA.
Second, this bill would establish a "pilot program" for alternatives to a fuel tax. What's the harm in trying out some different ideas?
Third, check opencongress.org and you find that this bill has (OMGWTFBBQ!) been referred to three committees.
What a scary threat to our rights!
If you read some of the other comments, you'll see that the problem is in the way medical devices are paid for. Right now, the government approves specific devices rather than providing a cost allowance (perhaps based on the most inexpensive option). I'm not sure why that is, but you can get some idea from the other comments ("I have ADHD, give me an iPhone"). Private insurers follow the lead.
I think it's a bit inaccurate to say that a private, for-profit company provides cheaper health care, because here we're comparing Apples (iPhone) to Oranges (the regulated medical device industry). Apple does not make medical devices and their device's utility as a medical device is coincidental.
Should medical device policy be changed? For sure, especially when the cost differential is so dramatic. But at the same time, this is not an issue of massive corruption, but of a well-intended policy gone sour.
That's because unions exist to protect the WORKER, not the BUSINESS. Business wasn't in the habit of providing 8 hour workdays or 40-hour weeks until unions came along.
Second, rectennas are stupidly efficient: 87%. We can barely get to 50% with solar. Furthermore, it's a lot cheaper to build a kilometer of rectenna than a kilometer of solar panels, and you can actually use the land underneath for something useful. And also unlike conventional solar, this thing would work all day and all night, every day of the year.
I think you might want to work your numbers some more. Even with all the amazing efficiency worked in, I'd imagine that a space launch of the solar panels, plus necessary systems for keeping them in stable orbit, will far outstrip the cost of doing earth-based solar PV panels.
From a personal standpoint, I'm sorry you feel overtaxed.
From a political standpoint, I'd say the majority of Americans don't share that perspective, as we've elected a president and Congress who intend to invest in public goods like health care with your/my tax dollars.
The bill in Congress could easily establish a federal sales tax that has a pass-through to the relevant state (via whatever formula of residence and nexus they want).
Don't kid yourself that the interstate commerce clause is going to save you from sales taxes on Amazon.
In most of the electricity-consuming world, power usage peaks for just a few seconds on the hottest days, when air conditioners are running. It's so important to shave off just a small slice of demand at that time that utilities will pay you to participate in a program where they can switch off your A/C for up to 15 minutes. Xcel Energy's program in the U.S. is called Saver's Switch.
The reason behind these programs is that peaking electricity is so expensive, entire power plants are built just for those few seconds. A networked system of appliances would be a godsend to reducing total infrastructure costs.
The Democratic and Republican parties did submit the required papers by the deadline, but with blanks where the nominee names would be, since neither had been officially nominated. As soon as the conventions were over, both parties submitted amendments to their filings to fill in the names.
According to at least one source I found, this kind of amendment is legal in Pennsylvania (where it happened before), but may not be in Texas.
What's clear is that both major parties did make a good faith effort to comply with the law, but with the dates of the conventions, they were not able to.
So, who's at fault? Texas, for having too early a filing deadline? The major parties, for having late conventions?
I would argue that to take them off the ballot would be the fairest option, in principle, but in practice, it will merely create a major headache for election officials who would then have to tally millions of write-in votes for Obama and McCain.
Prediction: If the court even hears the complaint, they dismiss it because of the implications for the actual election.
We dont know what Obama stands for except that he for the most socialist policy that i have ever read...coming just shy to that of marxism.
Yeah, Obama was totally promoting all sorts of government and worker ownership of the means of production last night. Right after he did the crowd surfing.
While I, like many Slashdotters, support the widespread adoption of Firefox, I also find it dumb to have this kind of download goal. I thought we wanted bandwidth shared - a la bittorrent - and not bolluxed up by having to all hit the same server.
Slashdot Mirror
...to code.google.com.
You are correct, of course, on the details, but I would say that you're wrong on the principle. You have two meaningful choices on your presidential ballot (e.g. candidates who can win). It's like getting search choices of Yahoo, Google, and then a bunch of other sites like Altavista.
It's good enough for a presidential election...
Slashdot nerd: "The sex detection part is some fairly trivial signal processing. You need a band pass filter with a passband of about 0.5-3 Hz (at a guess; better numbers exist, but I haven't tried googling them). Then you need to detect extended signal within that band; there are a variety of options for this, any of which are likely to work."
Normal person: "obviously this is a big joke, since he doesn't have to prove to anyone that he's done anything more than set up a Twitter account."
Two thoughts:
1) This is a great explanation of why bandwidth-constrained networks have limits and why a wireless/cable/DSL network can never really offer unlimited service.
2) I'm not sure if FiOS operates under such escalating cost structure. My understanding is that the capacity of the cable is ridiculous, and that it's only on the ends that you have to upgrade.
Wrong end. When you're talking about something that needs to use a network to be useful, you've got to start at the network. The device is the LEAST important part. As long as the phone company gets to say what does or does not run on their network the devices will do what they need to meet those requirements.
It's kind of funny actually - Apple releases a closed phone but doesn't sick [sic] the lawyers on any of the hackers. Google releases an "open" phone but does sick [sic] the lawyers on the hackers.
First time I've ever been able to show the replacement word and the error notation in the same brackets.
-Grammar Nazi
digg
First, who spends the time digging through the Congressional Record for this kind of stuff? Congress considers thousands of ideas every year, from the brilliant (health care reform) to the idiotic (Bridges to Nowhere). Most are DOA. Second, this bill would establish a "pilot program" for alternatives to a fuel tax. What's the harm in trying out some different ideas? Third, check opencongress.org and you find that this bill has (OMGWTFBBQ!) been referred to three committees. What a scary threat to our rights!
If you read some of the other comments, you'll see that the problem is in the way medical devices are paid for. Right now, the government approves specific devices rather than providing a cost allowance (perhaps based on the most inexpensive option). I'm not sure why that is, but you can get some idea from the other comments ("I have ADHD, give me an iPhone"). Private insurers follow the lead. I think it's a bit inaccurate to say that a private, for-profit company provides cheaper health care, because here we're comparing Apples (iPhone) to Oranges (the regulated medical device industry). Apple does not make medical devices and their device's utility as a medical device is coincidental. Should medical device policy be changed? For sure, especially when the cost differential is so dramatic. But at the same time, this is not an issue of massive corruption, but of a well-intended policy gone sour.
But wireless networks are DIGITAL. Those 1's and 0's...1010010101010100... oh noes!
That's because unions exist to protect the WORKER, not the BUSINESS. Business wasn't in the habit of providing 8 hour workdays or 40-hour weeks until unions came along.
Second, rectennas are stupidly efficient: 87%. We can barely get to 50% with solar. Furthermore, it's a lot cheaper to build a kilometer of rectenna than a kilometer of solar panels, and you can actually use the land underneath for something useful. And also unlike conventional solar, this thing would work all day and all night, every day of the year.
I think you might want to work your numbers some more. Even with all the amazing efficiency worked in, I'd imagine that a space launch of the solar panels, plus necessary systems for keeping them in stable orbit, will far outstrip the cost of doing earth-based solar PV panels.
From a political standpoint, I'd say the majority of Americans don't share that perspective, as we've elected a president and Congress who intend to invest in public goods like health care with your/my tax dollars.
From an informational standpoint, as a portion of GDP, total taxes in the U.S. are among the lowest of developed nations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP
So, overall, I'd say you are on the losing side right now, and from the other side, I'd say it sounds a lot like whining.
Don't kid yourself that the interstate commerce clause is going to save you from sales taxes on Amazon.
In most of the electricity-consuming world, power usage peaks for just a few seconds on the hottest days, when air conditioners are running. It's so important to shave off just a small slice of demand at that time that utilities will pay you to participate in a program where they can switch off your A/C for up to 15 minutes. Xcel Energy's program in the U.S. is called Saver's Switch.
The reason behind these programs is that peaking electricity is so expensive, entire power plants are built just for those few seconds. A networked system of appliances would be a godsend to reducing total infrastructure costs.
According to at least one source I found, this kind of amendment is legal in Pennsylvania (where it happened before), but may not be in Texas.
What's clear is that both major parties did make a good faith effort to comply with the law, but with the dates of the conventions, they were not able to.
So, who's at fault? Texas, for having too early a filing deadline? The major parties, for having late conventions?
I would argue that to take them off the ballot would be the fairest option, in principle, but in practice, it will merely create a major headache for election officials who would then have to tally millions of write-in votes for Obama and McCain.
Prediction: If the court even hears the complaint, they dismiss it because of the implications for the actual election.
Thanks for the reply - you learn something every day.
I'm lost in a thread about airplane security. Please text me to let me know how to escape...
Thanks,
But isn't the voltage constant? When I was comparing Apples to oranges (Dells), I looked at battery capacity and it was always in Watt-hours.
If the only evidence the police have on said 'criminal' is a string of bits on his cell phone, they probably didn't have much of a case anyway,
Unless, of course, that string of bits says something like "April 18: Murder ex-girlfriend, 6pm"
We dont know what Obama stands for except that he for the most socialist policy that i have ever read...coming just shy to that of marxism.
Yeah, Obama was totally promoting all sorts of government and worker ownership of the means of production last night. Right after he did the crowd surfing.
Read a book before you rant. And perhaps a reference on Obama's economic policy, too.
*sigh*
If you watch one HD movie a day, you'll exceed the quota.
I, for one, welcome our one-HD-movie-per-day-mega-download-overlords. Who has time to watch one movie a day, in any definition?
Ever see Who Killed the Electric Car? GM's problems have little to do with luck.
Regulation of carbon emissions via a cap or tax will increase energy prices because all fossil fuels (with carbon) will become more expensive.
And as other posters have noted, with carbon regulations, we get the excess cost as government revenue, instead of sending it to the Saudis.
While I, like many Slashdotters, support the widespread adoption of Firefox, I also find it dumb to have this kind of download goal. I thought we wanted bandwidth shared - a la bittorrent - and not bolluxed up by having to all hit the same server.