I would think that the Oort cloud itself would be the destination. Theoretically, the distribution of rocks is pretty even, so we should be able to get data no matter where in the cloud the probe goes. If it gets to that random point and finds either nothing, or a whole lot, we need to change the theory, don't we?
Remember, Columbus set out to sail to the Indies, not land in Mumbai harbor. Of course, if we follow that example the probe will crash into Neptune and we'll declare it a new comet, but the general principle is the same.
"If the unions have contracts that stipulate what cars the manufacturers can produce, that's news to me. Link please."
It depends on your definition of a contract. The unions have an understanding with the Democrats that, if the unions help them get elected, the unions will be taken care of.
FF to the demise of GM. President Obama has an agreement with GM that he won't make management decisions and won't tell them what cars to produce.
Facts: 1) Obama personally "fired" the CEO of GM. 2) The Democrats passed new CAFE standards which will effectively require GM to build smaller cars 3) GM changed it's plans to manufacture cars in China at the Administration's request and the Union's behest. 4) The UAW now owns more than 30% of GM, including seats on the board, despite having never paid a dime for GM stocks or bonds and wholly discounting the claims of those who had.
There may be no "contract", but the UAW id definitely dictating what GM makes, where they make it, and how they make it.
"The government controls the airways. Do you really want anarchy in the skies when you fly? "
Funny you should mention that. One of the biggest pushes in the industry is "free flight", which would allow airlines to plot their own routes to avoid weather, etc. Now they are constrained to certain corridors. The corridors were developed for flight safety, so everyone would know where everyone was and collisions would be avoided - aka, avoid "anarchy in the skies". The problem is that technology and situations change, and now it is arguably MORE dangerous to fly in those corridors because they are so crowded and they artificially constrain the system, resulting in more time in the air for planes and passengers. Cockpit radar and navigation systems have gotten better by orders of magnitude, so why are we not changing to a less risky system?
As for fire departments, you are aware that there are sizable populations in the US served by volunteer fire companies.
Just because the government has done some things well in the past doesn't mean that they are the answer to all our problems, nor even that they should keep doing those things as the situation changes.
And, not to put too fine a point on it, the services contract to which you refer WAS bid. Companies bid on the cost of their services - labor rates, markup on subcontractors, etc. They won it. Did there scope increase dramatically with the start of the war? Sure. But the only differences between KBR and, say, Bechtel doing the work are:
1) We would have paid MORE for Bechtel 2) No one would have heard about it because of the lack of connection to Cheney
Aside from the title troll (Cheney? WTF?), your faith in the current administration is almost touching in its naivete.
Think I'm wrong? It's entirely possible. But consider this - Comcast waited until a change of administration to fight a ruling that went against them. Sound familiar? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft.
Everyone here bitched about MS getting off with a slap on the wrist because of the change in administration, replete with details about campaign contributions, etc. Think maybe lightning will strike twice?
It is possible to not get any older without reversing the aging process. Given the amount of cocaine he claims to have snorted with his friends, it seems entirely possible that some of his friends indeed did NOT get any older.
"cash is legal tender for all transactions, both public and private."
That's not exactly true: Cash is legal tender for all debts, public and private. that means that is you owe someone money, they can't refuse cash, UNLESS payment by other means was negotiated prior to the transaction. It's subtle, but there are 2 substantial instances where the difference means something:
1) You cannot compel someone to take cash when performing a purchase. That's because there is no "debt" involved - you pay the money before you leave with the goods. CC only? No problem - you don't have to buy there.
2) Watch out for small signs that say "cash not accepted" - they count as "notification". When the DC Metro discovered that their parking lot attendants were pilfering over 50% of the parking revenue (and no, I'm not making this up), their solution was to...wait for it...ban cash and get rid of the parking attendants. There's still 1 there for problems, etc. What they forgot to do was put up a sign before you get into the parking lot that says "No Cash Accepted". A friend of mine, just to be a PITA, will drive up and hold out $4.25 in cash, and point out to them that he has incurred a debt by parking there and he is tendering an offer to satisfy that debt. If they refuse the tendered offer, he can consider the debt discharged, so open the gate, please.
"Electricity costs are something you measure based on tariffs. If you have a load curve of a pattern, one particular place is the best place to be, so you can just move your building there."
Except that very large electricity users can cut their own deal with the power company, and part of that deal can be demand pricing.
Remember how Enron manipulated electricity prices in California? The only reason that worked was that Cali had a very inelastic supply-demand curve - Enron could ask for, and get, very high prices because the utilities HAD to but power at those rates because their customers were protected from the price spikes and had no reason to cut demand. The utilities were Enron's customer, and had their nuts in a vise because they couldn't get power from other sources.
But, Enron (and other suppliers) have other customers as well - large users, like manufacturing plants and data centers. They can buy off the open market, and pay whatever the spot rate is. Companies have a little more leeway than public utilities - they can shut down, or reduce operations, but they can't do it forever. So their balls are, if not in a vice, at least a large pair of pliers.
But what if there was a way you could shed electrical demand but not cut output? Let's take a simple example. Lets say Very Large Search Company (VLSC) has 2 data centers - one east of the Rockies and one west. Load is shared about 50-50, based on geography. And lets say there's a big heat wave in California. So residential demand spikes, driving the spot price up. Now, if it is an extended heat wave, VLSC could manually send more traffic to their East of the Rockies center. But what if it's a day or 2? Not worth the effort. But if that routing happened automagically, by tying into spot prices wherever VLSC has data centers, you can dynamically shed electrical load by shedding traffic load.
The problem I see is that such a scheme demands extra server capacity at each data center - if they can save 40% on electricity costs, that means you need to spend for extra in place infrastructure that is mostly underutilized.
Profitability doesn't always come from efficiency. If an A380 can replace 3 777's, that works out fine - provided everyone wants the same departure time. If Carrier A offers 3 flights at varying times vs. Carrier B who offers 1, who will people choose?
No Democratic candidate has "won" the white vote since LBJ.
As for your assertion that there is no such thing as racism against whites, I lump that in with "All heterosexual sex is rape." Same reasons, same logic, same effect - being ignored.
You reinforce the last part of my comment - the judge didn't say "the DMCA supercedes the previous statute." She affirmed the previous statute and ruled that they do no conflict.
You are defending the judge's decision based on principles that the judge did not herself use. If it's that cut and dried, and the DMCA simply supercedes the previous statute, why did she not say so?
If it is because the "copy" isn't bit-for-bit, then the solution would be to say "Fine - consumers are not breaking the law if they make a bit-for-bit copy of a DVD. How would a consumer do that? By obtaining the keys from the content provider. But the content provider won't provide the keys. Which brings us back to the DMCA.
Allow me to ask a question: How would someone LEGALLY make a backup copy of a DVD that would not run afoul of the DMCA. You say things like "This is slashdot" and "you can probably name..." referring to the multiple ways to make a backup copy of a DVD. Well, the only ways I know of are illegal under the DMCA.
But if the judge can find a reading consistent with both, then she has to take it, even if it's not the optimal. Judges can't write laws.
Here, the judge found a reading consistent with both: consumers have the protection of fair use as a defense to copyright infringement and manufacturers can't make or sell devices that circumvent copy-protection and encryption. These are logically consistent, even if it makes it effectively impossible for consumers to make backups.
Change 2 words, and that doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? Because , per the wording of the DMCA, you cannot CREATE a means of circumventing that protection, even if it's for personal use. The DMCA says, in effect, that if a manufacturer puts encryption on a piece of media, copying it is a violation of the law. Period. There previous law says that copying for a backup copy is a defense against copyright claim. So, in a single action I am both subject to and defended against prosecution. How can that not be a conflict?
Following on, if we are to take the position that the provisions of the DMCA supercede the previous law, fine - then THAT's the way she should have ruled (as I pointed out in my post).
This is Slashdot, and you're trying to claim that you have no way of making a backup of a DVD unless you use the RealNetwork's utility? Really?
Finally, cut me a frikken break - you argue for half a page regarding the law, precedence, and judicial practice, and are then going to pretend this case was just about this one piece of software? As many comments have noted, as nice as it is to see Real Networks get spanked, that's not what this is about, is it?
Slashdot Mirror
I would think that the Oort cloud itself would be the destination. Theoretically, the distribution of rocks is pretty even, so we should be able to get data no matter where in the cloud the probe goes. If it gets to that random point and finds either nothing, or a whole lot, we need to change the theory, don't we?
Remember, Columbus set out to sail to the Indies, not land in Mumbai harbor. Of course, if we follow that example the probe will crash into Neptune and we'll declare it a new comet, but the general principle is the same.
"If the unions have contracts that stipulate what cars the manufacturers can produce, that's news to me. Link please."
It depends on your definition of a contract. The unions have an understanding with the Democrats that, if the unions help them get elected, the unions will be taken care of.
FF to the demise of GM. President Obama has an agreement with GM that he won't make management decisions and won't tell them what cars to produce.
Facts:
1) Obama personally "fired" the CEO of GM.
2) The Democrats passed new CAFE standards which will effectively require GM to build smaller cars
3) GM changed it's plans to manufacture cars in China at the Administration's request and the Union's behest.
4) The UAW now owns more than 30% of GM, including seats on the board, despite having never paid a dime for GM stocks or bonds and wholly discounting the claims of those who had.
There may be no "contract", but the UAW id definitely dictating what GM makes, where they make it, and how they make it.
"They're not aliens if they're in their own country. :-P"
Can we really say that a donkey is a citizen?
So you've seen the Jimmy Neutron episode with Tim Allen, Vanna White, and Alyssa Milano too?
God, I think I'm going to weep.
While I have no doubt that you've been rectally probed, I strongly doubt an alien was responsible.
Well, maybe if it happened in Tijuana, but still...
Show me the girlfriend who demonstrates ALL the porn you want, and I'll show you the picture of Elliot Spitzer right beside her in the NY Post.
As you point out, you are a slashdotter - that means you leave...deposits...somewhere.
Tissues, old sock, sheets, Mom's underwear drawer...
Then I believe you have accumulated the most boring employees in the world.
"The government controls the airways. Do you really want anarchy in the skies when you fly? "
Funny you should mention that. One of the biggest pushes in the industry is "free flight", which would allow airlines to plot their own routes to avoid weather, etc. Now they are constrained to certain corridors. The corridors were developed for flight safety, so everyone would know where everyone was and collisions would be avoided - aka, avoid "anarchy in the skies". The problem is that technology and situations change, and now it is arguably MORE dangerous to fly in those corridors because they are so crowded and they artificially constrain the system, resulting in more time in the air for planes and passengers. Cockpit radar and navigation systems have gotten better by orders of magnitude, so why are we not changing to a less risky system?
As for fire departments, you are aware that there are sizable populations in the US served by volunteer fire companies.
Just because the government has done some things well in the past doesn't mean that they are the answer to all our problems, nor even that they should keep doing those things as the situation changes.
"I thought the days of Haliburten were over ..."
And, not to put too fine a point on it, the services contract to which you refer WAS bid. Companies bid on the cost of their services - labor rates, markup on subcontractors, etc. They won it. Did there scope increase dramatically with the start of the war? Sure. But the only differences between KBR and, say, Bechtel doing the work are:
1) We would have paid MORE for Bechtel
2) No one would have heard about it because of the lack of connection to Cheney
Aside from the title troll (Cheney? WTF?), your faith in the current administration is almost touching in its naivete.
Think I'm wrong? It's entirely possible. But consider this - Comcast waited until a change of administration to fight a ruling that went against them. Sound familiar? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft.
Everyone here bitched about MS getting off with a slap on the wrist because of the change in administration, replete with details about campaign contributions, etc. Think maybe lightning will strike twice?
"I'm sure if the FCC threatened to revoke their common carrier status, Comcast et al would pipe down quicker than you could blink an eye."
That would work great - if indeed Comcast had common carrier status. In the US, data services are generally exempt from common carrier regulation.
I immediately thought of http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084171/
Ok, so I wasn't the only person who thought "Vaseline and WD-40? WTF are they using that for lube?"
"Some of you got younger?"
It is possible to not get any older without reversing the aging process. Given the amount of cocaine he claims to have snorted with his friends, it seems entirely possible that some of his friends indeed did NOT get any older.
"cash is legal tender for all transactions, both public and private."
That's not exactly true: Cash is legal tender for all debts, public and private. that means that is you owe someone money, they can't refuse cash, UNLESS payment by other means was negotiated prior to the transaction. It's subtle, but there are 2 substantial instances where the difference means something:
1) You cannot compel someone to take cash when performing a purchase. That's because there is no "debt" involved - you pay the money before you leave with the goods. CC only? No problem - you don't have to buy there.
2) Watch out for small signs that say "cash not accepted" - they count as "notification". When the DC Metro discovered that their parking lot attendants were pilfering over 50% of the parking revenue (and no, I'm not making this up), their solution was to...wait for it...ban cash and get rid of the parking attendants. There's still 1 there for problems, etc. What they forgot to do was put up a sign before you get into the parking lot that says "No Cash Accepted". A friend of mine, just to be a PITA, will drive up and hold out $4.25 in cash, and point out to them that he has incurred a debt by parking there and he is tendering an offer to satisfy that debt. If they refuse the tendered offer, he can consider the debt discharged, so open the gate, please.
Why can't I have one of these in my back yard?
"Electricity costs are something you measure based on tariffs. If you have a load curve of a pattern, one particular place is the best place to be, so you can just move your building there."
Except that very large electricity users can cut their own deal with the power company, and part of that deal can be demand pricing.
Remember how Enron manipulated electricity prices in California? The only reason that worked was that Cali had a very inelastic supply-demand curve - Enron could ask for, and get, very high prices because the utilities HAD to but power at those rates because their customers were protected from the price spikes and had no reason to cut demand. The utilities were Enron's customer, and had their nuts in a vise because they couldn't get power from other sources.
But, Enron (and other suppliers) have other customers as well - large users, like manufacturing plants and data centers. They can buy off the open market, and pay whatever the spot rate is. Companies have a little more leeway than public utilities - they can shut down, or reduce operations, but they can't do it forever. So their balls are, if not in a vice, at least a large pair of pliers.
But what if there was a way you could shed electrical demand but not cut output? Let's take a simple example. Lets say Very Large Search Company (VLSC) has 2 data centers - one east of the Rockies and one west. Load is shared about 50-50, based on geography. And lets say there's a big heat wave in California. So residential demand spikes, driving the spot price up. Now, if it is an extended heat wave, VLSC could manually send more traffic to their East of the Rockies center. But what if it's a day or 2? Not worth the effort. But if that routing happened automagically, by tying into spot prices wherever VLSC has data centers, you can dynamically shed electrical load by shedding traffic load.
The problem I see is that such a scheme demands extra server capacity at each data center - if they can save 40% on electricity costs, that means you need to spend for extra in place infrastructure that is mostly underutilized.
Profitability doesn't always come from efficiency. If an A380 can replace 3 777's, that works out fine - provided everyone wants the same departure time. If Carrier A offers 3 flights at varying times vs. Carrier B who offers 1, who will people choose?
http://www.slate.com/id/2204251/sidebar/2204308/
No Democratic candidate has "won" the white vote since LBJ.
As for your assertion that there is no such thing as racism against whites, I lump that in with "All heterosexual sex is rape." Same reasons, same logic, same effect - being ignored.
"genetic mutation for less sheep"
That would be fewer sheep. After all, the whole point of sleep is to count them...
You reinforce the last part of my comment - the judge didn't say "the DMCA supercedes the previous statute." She affirmed the previous statute and ruled that they do no conflict.
You are defending the judge's decision based on principles that the judge did not herself use. If it's that cut and dried, and the DMCA simply supercedes the previous statute, why did she not say so?
How is making a backup copy a derivative work?
If it is because the "copy" isn't bit-for-bit, then the solution would be to say "Fine - consumers are not breaking the law if they make a bit-for-bit copy of a DVD. How would a consumer do that? By obtaining the keys from the content provider. But the content provider won't provide the keys. Which brings us back to the DMCA.
Allow me to ask a question: How would someone LEGALLY make a backup copy of a DVD that would not run afoul of the DMCA. You say things like "This is slashdot" and "you can probably name..." referring to the multiple ways to make a backup copy of a DVD. Well, the only ways I know of are illegal under the DMCA.
Educate me.
Change 2 words, and that doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? Because , per the wording of the DMCA, you cannot CREATE a means of circumventing that protection, even if it's for personal use. The DMCA says, in effect, that if a manufacturer puts encryption on a piece of media, copying it is a violation of the law. Period. There previous law says that copying for a backup copy is a defense against copyright claim. So, in a single action I am both subject to and defended against prosecution. How can that not be a conflict?
Following on, if we are to take the position that the provisions of the DMCA supercede the previous law, fine - then THAT's the way she should have ruled (as I pointed out in my post).
Finally, cut me a frikken break - you argue for half a page regarding the law, precedence, and judicial practice, and are then going to pretend this case was just about this one piece of software? As many comments have noted, as nice as it is to see Real Networks get spanked, that's not what this is about, is it?
"Unless they are going to start monitoring the software that every person runs on their computer... "
Kile the GP said: wait.