However, infallibility extends to all preexisting dogma and moral teachings of the Church, but nothing else. There have only been 2 Infallible Teachings in the last 139 years, the definition of Infallibility itself and the declaration of the Immaculate Conception in 1950 (that Mary was born without sin).
But the Pope is still just a man as the_womble asserted. All infallibility means is that in the case of the rare infallible teaching, God will not allow the Pope to get it wrong. In all other ways, the Pope is no better off than any of the rest of us.
Don't forget rounding to a 'round number,' because even if costs plus 20% markup adds up to $242, that isn't going to be the price, they're either going to go with $250 to be competitive (don't want to be seen as cheap) or $225 or $240.
All of that comes down to a self and market study generated number that indicates value. Depending on how the product will be seen compared to the top (most visible) competitor, they can go for 4 images. They can go for cheapest that fills the most basic need, similar utility at a cheaper price, similar utility at the same price, or higher utility at a premium price. Then, based on what the executives and marketers decide is the best price for both immediate and long term market positioning, a price is picked. Pricing is a mix of science and art, and some get it right, and some get it wrong.
Don't forget that the company, while insured for the loss of the ship and the cargo, probably isn't protected against paying the crew it's salary for the time they are held hostage, plus the loss in revenue in not having the ship working on it's next shipment, which probably isn't covered under the insurance policy.
In eastern Kansas (and I assume other rural areas), Google is terrible about estimating the best route because if you are on a good non-interstate road, it seems to significantly underestimate the road speed. For instance, on this route, the speed is 60 miles per hour, but Google estimates that the 45 mile (50 minute) drive takes 75 minutes. I've seen this on almost every rural road with a speed of 50-60 miles per hour where the road is not an interstate. Maybe I need to report the correct speeds to Google to get them to update my local roads, but I haven't taken the time to record and report them to see if it will make a difference.
I'm as free market as anybody, but wiring is infrastructure, and I don't have a problem with infrastructure being provided by the government. Let the local government, through the power utility, run fiber optic to everyplace that receives power, unless a private company provides a 100MB connection to the house for less than $20. That 100MB line should have low enough latency to provide live TV and VOIP phone connections. If the private companies won't build a better product than can be provided publicly, they shouldn't expect protection from competition.
It seems to me that that's a problem between the shareholders (employer) and the executive (employee). If the shareholders don't guarantee that they're getting their money's worth out of their executives, I don't see how that justifies making sure everybody below him also should be overpaid. Owners of stock in retirement plans (all of us with 401k and IRA, education funds, and other stock ownership programs) need to create voter blocks that vote out overpaid executives and offer the job to people at rates we consider more reasonable.
Does the fact that they get away with it justify the unions keeping other people out of work to justify higher wages for the employees who got in based on who they know or are related to? We have a Goodyear plant in my town, and I heard a long time ago that to get a job, you need to be related to somebody in the union. Too bad for all those people that could have a job if the company could have reasonable hiring policies.
I wonder if the monitoring the psychological effects of the experiment would include adding an increasing the amount of lag between when the isolated crew send a message to Mission Control, and when they get a response back. After all, instant response would make the crew feel like mission control were just a phone call away. Also, wouldn't the atmosphere of the environment be different, because you would always know you could be brought out if something went wrong. To run a real simulation, wouldn't the crew need to really think they were millions of miles away with no chance of rescue?
There is going to have to be either a threat of death (either for soldiers or civilians) or economic pain, probably above and beyond the cost of building/replacing and operating your robots. After your enemy destroys your robots, they will always have an incentive to attack your human military, economic capital, or civilian population to force you to give up more in the ensuing treaty.
A stock investor rescued from a 21st century cryogenics ship after repeated demands to speak to his stock broker:
Capt. Picard: A lot has changed in the past three hundred years. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We've eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions. We've grown out of our infancy. Ralph Oppenhouse: You've got it all wrong. It has never been about possessions. It's about power. Capt. Picard: Power to do what? Ralph Oppenhouse: To control your life, your destiny. Capt. Picard: That kind of control is an illusion. Ralph Oppenhouse: Really? I'm here, aren't I? I should be dead, but I'm not.
Capt. Picard: This is the 24th century. Material needs no longer exist. Ralph Oppenhouse: Then what's the challenge? Capt. Picard: The challenge, Mr. Offenhouse, is to improve yourself - to enrich yourself. Enjoy it.
Ralph Oppenhouse: What do you invest in? Capt. Picard: We invest in ourselves.
I don't know if this is presented this way to explain why the show might not have a capitalist economy, or if the writers or creators think this is where humanity is going. Let's say you and another person both desire to own a highly coveted house with a certain view. How is the owner determined? Coin toss? It goes to the oldest, youngest, or the one with the larger family? To the one with the higher job importance? Or did they get it wrong, will they, like today, have money, and the one willing to bid the most gets it?
Maybe they need to release a module that can randomize the evolutions, several different at a time, and then the player can watch as some of the mutations die while others thrive. It shouldn't be too hard to make a more scientific game of it.
Studies have found that regardless of parental ability and education, homeschooled children test at the same level as privately schooled students. I even read that there was a study recently that found the homeschool students perform at 87 percentile of the public school system. Considering there are more that a 100,000 children per grade level being homeschooled today, it's not exactly a rare thing for parents to have what it takes to out perform the school system, because it's not really about what the teacher knows.
The parents don't have to be experts at whatever they want their child to learn. Organizations exist that will consult and grade papers for homeschoolers if a parent feels they need help. If the parent or student wants to pursue an avenue of education that the parent isn't trained in, the parent can send their child to an expert, if they need higher level math, enroll them in a college level course or higher a college student as a tutor. If you want them to learn art or music, have them take private lessons. If you want them to study a language, acquire a Rosetta Stone course, or find a local group that speaks the language, and ask if your child can spend time with their children.
If you think about the amount of time spent wasted by an individual student during a day, and then how much time the student spends learning the material at home, many students are really homeschooled, after being day cared at the school all day.
As for the local school district, most states have laws that give the school money for head count. It is in the school administration's best interest to have the largest number of students in the school, even if it isn't in the best interest of that student or the other students (i.e. troublemakers that get shifted from school to school).
Already posted this in another patent story today.
Instead of exclusively considering prior art, we should give the public a chance to respond to every patent application by being given a description of the device, and have an opportunity to develop an invention to the device. If the same or a very similar invention is developed by somebody within a year, then the patent is clearly obvious. If two people submit patent applications simultaneously (and it can be proven that they didn't copy each others' work), then neither person gets the patent. In these cases, we don't need the invention patented, because the point of the patent is give the knowledge of the patent to the public, after a period of time. If multiple people can develop the solution easily, then the device should be considered trivial. The patent examiners should be instructed that patents should only be given out in cases of clear innovation, if in doubt, the device should not be patented.
I really think we should only be handing out a few dozen (if that!!!) patents a year, and I think the above adjustments would move us a long way towards this.
Really, we shouldn't allow easily thought of solutions to be patented. Patents should be for difficult to patent items, right? We want to protect ideas that were so difficult to come up with, that they might never have been developed.
The solution? Publish the description of what the idea does. If somebody can recreate it or something similar within a year based on the description of what the invention does, the the item should be considered obvious, and not patentable.
If their machine works, and wins the format war, it will BECOME the industry standard, and everyone will have to license the right to use their formats.
Thing is, I don't want a 3D TV. I want my 2d setup until we get holographic 3D that you can move around and choose your own perspective.
When somebody wants a patent, they give submit their designs. The patent office then publishes a description of the patent. If somebody can develop an alternative within a year (or show prior art) based solely on the description, then the invention is considered trivial, but if nobody does, then it is considered innovative, and given patent protection for 5, or maybe giving different inventions different lengths based on how innovative they are considered. Bias is against giving out the patent.
The reason I recommend shortening the length of the patent is that a patent is supposed to be a temporary monopoly. 200 years ago, it took years to get production and distribution to the point where you could make a lot of headway in the market. Now days, if you are going to be successful, it's going to be within a few years. The point of the patent should not be to allow you to hamstring the market indefinitely, it should protect your research investment while you develop name recognition, and work out the kinks in your system. After that, the patent holder should be expected to improve their product, service, and price to compete with other competitors.
Just above, somebody mentioned the 5 Love Languages. It relates to what you're saying, because, some women may want you doing what she likes, but I think my wife wants to know that what is important to her matters to me. Really, every couple should look into the five love languages, and figure out what they mean for themselves.
The 5 love languages are:
Quality Time Loving words Physical Affection Giving Gifts Acts of Service
Each person needs one of these more than the others. That is, the one of these that speaks most to you, will give you the most emotional benefit. It's important for the couple to figure out which love language the other person needs most, and to give it to them regularly, but do not forget the others.
Most people expect that what they need is what the other person needs. For example, a woman might feel neglected, but the guy thinks he is doing well, because he wants quality time and by giving it, gets what he needs, and doesn't realize she needs verbal affirmation.
In my marriage, my wife likes Acts of Service. This includes me going to work, so she can stay home, supporting her and protecting her, especially as we are going to soon reveal an unpopular decision to our relatives, mowing the lawn, and doing the dishes, as well as a few other chores. What I need back is Physical Affection. Specifically, I told her a few months ago, I need a couple of minutes of kissing regularly. She neglected this, and I was getting very depressed. Things came to a head a couple of weeks ago, and I told her she NEEDED to address this, and things have been much better since.
This is important, because it addresses the most efficient and effective methods of conveying to your loved one how you feel, and once you both feel loved, you are more able and willing to give your spouse what they need, and you and your partner become the team you are supposed to be.
The books on the 5 love languages give ways to figure out what each person in any relationship (this goes for your relationship with an SO, but also with your children, parents, siblings, etc.) needs, and recommendations on what sorts of things help.
I'd also remember a good rule to follow is that it takes 10 complements (or the above acts) to overcome a criticism of the person. Keep your acts of love strongly above the number of criticisms, and the person in question will hopefully be less defensive when you tell them you need them to change.
The other three fighter craft available to the USAF were commissioned in 1976 (F-15), 1978 (F-16), and 1988 (F-15E). I know that the F-15 (I assume it's the 1970s units) have been exhibiting structural failures that have cost the loss of several craft and the grounding of all units a couple of times in recent years. It would be pretty easy for a foreign power (Russia and China) to have a modern aircraft that can out perform something we designed and built 30+ years ago. Basically those three craft all need to be phased out in the next 10 years, leaving us with the F-22 (clearly superior to anything anybody else has), and the F-35 (which will be available to multiple countries, and therefore not superior), as well as the unmanned aircraft. The F-22 out-rates the F-35 by every metric, even though it will be 6 years older.
Anyway, the GP didn't claim that creating more would make the new craft free. But the billions spent to develop the F-22 can't be recouped. What's important is, going forward, is whether it's better to buy 2 F-22s, or 3 F-35s. Consider, with better planes, your pilot can cover more ground, which makes it less difficult to find the pilots necessary to man the aircraft in question, which means you have to find and train more pilots to man the extra planes, and extra planes will also require extra ground crew mechanics and engineers to maintain the planes.
If it's me, I would always choose to build more of the superior plane as long as the extra cost isn't too high, and I don't consider the extra cost to be too different in this case.
When you see it in an advertisement, you know to take it with a grain of salt. That is, you know that the seller may not have credibility because they have a financial incentive to say what they say.
A review is word of mouth, an independent person who has used the product and is giving you their opinion of how well the product worked. In the pre-Internet days, you could talk to somebody you know or happen to meet who has experience with product X (say the iPhone). You expect that the person will give you an honest, unbiased opinion of the item in question, because they probably have no financial incentive in lying. Now, with online reviews, you can either go with a professional reviewer (who may have received benefit to review the item favorably), or you can go to a user review site (Amazon or NewEgg's product pages).
The anonymity of the Internet means that the seller can pose as a user, and have user credibility when they should have seller credibility. And honestly, most products only have a few dozen to a hundred or so reviews. It would be a fairly simple matter for the seller to have a marketer write up three falsified positive reviews (or even a poor review of the competitors' product) a week, and easily overwhelm the false reviews with a flood of good reviews.
I'm a system analyst, and I support the hardware distribution that goes into this.
This system doesn't have to help get the mail there, it just has to report when it's arrived. Mail processing is done by large machines in localized distribution centers, and then shipped to the local post offices where they get it into the hands of the carrier on the route for that day.The data entry is handled by hand held scanners that upload the data back to the LIM (local server). The central computers are most likely in one of three spots (I'm not sure, I don't know how they're configured, I just support the system they're ordered through) either in Eagan, Raleigh, or St. Louis. At least, that's where I know of major server locations in the USPS. But I'm not sure the information is sent to the local servers wirelessly. I know that the local locations have USB cradles, so I assume the data is kept on the handheld unit all day, then uploaded when the carrier returns to the office, but that's just a guess. If that's the case, the machine sits idle most of the day, then runs most of it's work in the hour or two when the carriers return to the office in a batch run.
WGA will still be required, right? Onerous licensing that means you don't have final authority over your OS? As far as increasing their market share, most Apple fans probably aren't going to be buying Win 7, and many Linux users probably won't either.
$49 for Home Ultimate, and $99 for Professional for a pre-order upgrade. (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/buy/offers/pre-order.aspx)
I don't have Windows at home, but if I were considering upgrading, I would probably pay this price, and wait until I was convinced 7 was ready to install it.
Only if you don't forget to factor in the risk of Tesla not being able to pay back the loan. I haven't seen their numbers, but to assume no risk is make the same error that caused problems for Bear Sterns, Freddie and Fanny Mac, AIG, and others.
Slashdot Mirror
The declaration was in 1870.
However, infallibility extends to all preexisting dogma and moral teachings of the Church, but nothing else. There have only been 2 Infallible Teachings in the last 139 years, the definition of Infallibility itself and the declaration of the Immaculate Conception in 1950 (that Mary was born without sin).
But the Pope is still just a man as the_womble asserted. All infallibility means is that in the case of the rare infallible teaching, God will not allow the Pope to get it wrong. In all other ways, the Pope is no better off than any of the rest of us.
Don't forget rounding to a 'round number,' because even if costs plus 20% markup adds up to $242, that isn't going to be the price, they're either going to go with $250 to be competitive (don't want to be seen as cheap) or $225 or $240.
All of that comes down to a self and market study generated number that indicates value. Depending on how the product will be seen compared to the top (most visible) competitor, they can go for 4 images. They can go for cheapest that fills the most basic need, similar utility at a cheaper price, similar utility at the same price, or higher utility at a premium price. Then, based on what the executives and marketers decide is the best price for both immediate and long term market positioning, a price is picked. Pricing is a mix of science and art, and some get it right, and some get it wrong.
Don't forget that the company, while insured for the loss of the ship and the cargo, probably isn't protected against paying the crew it's salary for the time they are held hostage, plus the loss in revenue in not having the ship working on it's next shipment, which probably isn't covered under the insurance policy.
In eastern Kansas (and I assume other rural areas), Google is terrible about estimating the best route because if you are on a good non-interstate road, it seems to significantly underestimate the road speed. For instance, on this route, the speed is 60 miles per hour, but Google estimates that the 45 mile (50 minute) drive takes 75 minutes. I've seen this on almost every rural road with a speed of 50-60 miles per hour where the road is not an interstate. Maybe I need to report the correct speeds to Google to get them to update my local roads, but I haven't taken the time to record and report them to see if it will make a difference.
I'm as free market as anybody, but wiring is infrastructure, and I don't have a problem with infrastructure being provided by the government. Let the local government, through the power utility, run fiber optic to everyplace that receives power, unless a private company provides a 100MB connection to the house for less than $20. That 100MB line should have low enough latency to provide live TV and VOIP phone connections. If the private companies won't build a better product than can be provided publicly, they shouldn't expect protection from competition.
It seems to me that that's a problem between the shareholders (employer) and the executive (employee). If the shareholders don't guarantee that they're getting their money's worth out of their executives, I don't see how that justifies making sure everybody below him also should be overpaid. Owners of stock in retirement plans (all of us with 401k and IRA, education funds, and other stock ownership programs) need to create voter blocks that vote out overpaid executives and offer the job to people at rates we consider more reasonable.
Does the fact that they get away with it justify the unions keeping other people out of work to justify higher wages for the employees who got in based on who they know or are related to? We have a Goodyear plant in my town, and I heard a long time ago that to get a job, you need to be related to somebody in the union. Too bad for all those people that could have a job if the company could have reasonable hiring policies.
I wonder if the monitoring the psychological effects of the experiment would include adding an increasing the amount of lag between when the isolated crew send a message to Mission Control, and when they get a response back. After all, instant response would make the crew feel like mission control were just a phone call away. Also, wouldn't the atmosphere of the environment be different, because you would always know you could be brought out if something went wrong. To run a real simulation, wouldn't the crew need to really think they were millions of miles away with no chance of rescue?
Dear Darl McBride:
I would like to interview you for a position I have. The application requires a licence that costs just $699.
Signed,
All future potential employers
There is going to have to be either a threat of death (either for soldiers or civilians) or economic pain, probably above and beyond the cost of building/replacing and operating your robots. After your enemy destroys your robots, they will always have an incentive to attack your human military, economic capital, or civilian population to force you to give up more in the ensuing treaty.
From the season one season finale:
A stock investor rescued from a 21st century cryogenics ship after repeated demands to speak to his stock broker:
Capt. Picard: A lot has changed in the past three hundred years. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We've eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions. We've grown out of our infancy.
Ralph Oppenhouse: You've got it all wrong. It has never been about possessions. It's about power.
Capt. Picard: Power to do what?
Ralph Oppenhouse: To control your life, your destiny.
Capt. Picard: That kind of control is an illusion.
Ralph Oppenhouse: Really? I'm here, aren't I? I should be dead, but I'm not.
Capt. Picard: This is the 24th century. Material needs no longer exist.
Ralph Oppenhouse: Then what's the challenge?
Capt. Picard: The challenge, Mr. Offenhouse, is to improve yourself - to enrich yourself. Enjoy it.
Ralph Oppenhouse: What do you invest in?
Capt. Picard: We invest in ourselves.
I don't know if this is presented this way to explain why the show might not have a capitalist economy, or if the writers or creators think this is where humanity is going. Let's say you and another person both desire to own a highly coveted house with a certain view. How is the owner determined? Coin toss? It goes to the oldest, youngest, or the one with the larger family? To the one with the higher job importance? Or did they get it wrong, will they, like today, have money, and the one willing to bid the most gets it?
Maybe they need to release a module that can randomize the evolutions, several different at a time, and then the player can watch as some of the mutations die while others thrive. It shouldn't be too hard to make a more scientific game of it.
Studies have found that regardless of parental ability and education, homeschooled children test at the same level as privately schooled students. I even read that there was a study recently that found the homeschool students perform at 87 percentile of the public school system. Considering there are more that a 100,000 children per grade level being homeschooled today, it's not exactly a rare thing for parents to have what it takes to out perform the school system, because it's not really about what the teacher knows.
The parents don't have to be experts at whatever they want their child to learn. Organizations exist that will consult and grade papers for homeschoolers if a parent feels they need help. If the parent or student wants to pursue an avenue of education that the parent isn't trained in, the parent can send their child to an expert, if they need higher level math, enroll them in a college level course or higher a college student as a tutor. If you want them to learn art or music, have them take private lessons. If you want them to study a language, acquire a Rosetta Stone course, or find a local group that speaks the language, and ask if your child can spend time with their children.
If you think about the amount of time spent wasted by an individual student during a day, and then how much time the student spends learning the material at home, many students are really homeschooled, after being day cared at the school all day.
As for the local school district, most states have laws that give the school money for head count. It is in the school administration's best interest to have the largest number of students in the school, even if it isn't in the best interest of that student or the other students (i.e. troublemakers that get shifted from school to school).
Already posted this in another patent story today.
Instead of exclusively considering prior art, we should give the public a chance to respond to every patent application by being given a description of the device, and have an opportunity to develop an invention to the device. If the same or a very similar invention is developed by somebody within a year, then the patent is clearly obvious. If two people submit patent applications simultaneously (and it can be proven that they didn't copy each others' work), then neither person gets the patent. In these cases, we don't need the invention patented, because the point of the patent is give the knowledge of the patent to the public, after a period of time. If multiple people can develop the solution easily, then the device should be considered trivial. The patent examiners should be instructed that patents should only be given out in cases of clear innovation, if in doubt, the device should not be patented.
I really think we should only be handing out a few dozen (if that!!!) patents a year, and I think the above adjustments would move us a long way towards this.
Eric
Really, we shouldn't allow easily thought of solutions to be patented. Patents should be for difficult to patent items, right? We want to protect ideas that were so difficult to come up with, that they might never have been developed.
The solution? Publish the description of what the idea does. If somebody can recreate it or something similar within a year based on the description of what the invention does, the the item should be considered obvious, and not patentable.
If their machine works, and wins the format war, it will BECOME the industry standard, and everyone will have to license the right to use their formats.
Thing is, I don't want a 3D TV. I want my 2d setup until we get holographic 3D that you can move around and choose your own perspective.
What if the system worked like this:
When somebody wants a patent, they give submit their designs. The patent office then publishes a description of the patent. If somebody can develop an alternative within a year (or show prior art) based solely on the description, then the invention is considered trivial, but if nobody does, then it is considered innovative, and given patent protection for 5, or maybe giving different inventions different lengths based on how innovative they are considered. Bias is against giving out the patent.
The reason I recommend shortening the length of the patent is that a patent is supposed to be a temporary monopoly. 200 years ago, it took years to get production and distribution to the point where you could make a lot of headway in the market. Now days, if you are going to be successful, it's going to be within a few years. The point of the patent should not be to allow you to hamstring the market indefinitely, it should protect your research investment while you develop name recognition, and work out the kinks in your system. After that, the patent holder should be expected to improve their product, service, and price to compete with other competitors.
In music, Sony sells the player and new content.
In books, Sony sells the reader, but only gives away old content.
Ergo, Sony is open in this device category because the company has no IP interest in the field. If Sony were to buy a publisher, things might change.
Just above, somebody mentioned the 5 Love Languages. It relates to what you're saying, because, some women may want you doing what she likes, but I think my wife wants to know that what is important to her matters to me. Really, every couple should look into the five love languages, and figure out what they mean for themselves.
The 5 love languages are:
Quality Time
Loving words
Physical Affection
Giving Gifts
Acts of Service
Each person needs one of these more than the others. That is, the one of these that speaks most to you, will give you the most emotional benefit. It's important for the couple to figure out which love language the other person needs most, and to give it to them regularly, but do not forget the others.
Most people expect that what they need is what the other person needs. For example, a woman might feel neglected, but the guy thinks he is doing well, because he wants quality time and by giving it, gets what he needs, and doesn't realize she needs verbal affirmation.
In my marriage, my wife likes Acts of Service. This includes me going to work, so she can stay home, supporting her and protecting her, especially as we are going to soon reveal an unpopular decision to our relatives, mowing the lawn, and doing the dishes, as well as a few other chores. What I need back is Physical Affection. Specifically, I told her a few months ago, I need a couple of minutes of kissing regularly. She neglected this, and I was getting very depressed. Things came to a head a couple of weeks ago, and I told her she NEEDED to address this, and things have been much better since.
This is important, because it addresses the most efficient and effective methods of conveying to your loved one how you feel, and once you both feel loved, you are more able and willing to give your spouse what they need, and you and your partner become the team you are supposed to be.
The books on the 5 love languages give ways to figure out what each person in any relationship (this goes for your relationship with an SO, but also with your children, parents, siblings, etc.) needs, and recommendations on what sorts of things help.
I'd also remember a good rule to follow is that it takes 10 complements (or the above acts) to overcome a criticism of the person. Keep your acts of love strongly above the number of criticisms, and the person in question will hopefully be less defensive when you tell them you need them to change.
The other three fighter craft available to the USAF were commissioned in 1976 (F-15), 1978 (F-16), and 1988 (F-15E). I know that the F-15 (I assume it's the 1970s units) have been exhibiting structural failures that have cost the loss of several craft and the grounding of all units a couple of times in recent years. It would be pretty easy for a foreign power (Russia and China) to have a modern aircraft that can out perform something we designed and built 30+ years ago. Basically those three craft all need to be phased out in the next 10 years, leaving us with the F-22 (clearly superior to anything anybody else has), and the F-35 (which will be available to multiple countries, and therefore not superior), as well as the unmanned aircraft. The F-22 out-rates the F-35 by every metric, even though it will be 6 years older.
Anyway, the GP didn't claim that creating more would make the new craft free. But the billions spent to develop the F-22 can't be recouped. What's important is, going forward, is whether it's better to buy 2 F-22s, or 3 F-35s. Consider, with better planes, your pilot can cover more ground, which makes it less difficult to find the pilots necessary to man the aircraft in question, which means you have to find and train more pilots to man the extra planes, and extra planes will also require extra ground crew mechanics and engineers to maintain the planes.
If it's me, I would always choose to build more of the superior plane as long as the extra cost isn't too high, and I don't consider the extra cost to be too different in this case.
Well, there is a difference.
When you see it in an advertisement, you know to take it with a grain of salt. That is, you know that the seller may not have credibility because they have a financial incentive to say what they say.
A review is word of mouth, an independent person who has used the product and is giving you their opinion of how well the product worked. In the pre-Internet days, you could talk to somebody you know or happen to meet who has experience with product X (say the iPhone). You expect that the person will give you an honest, unbiased opinion of the item in question, because they probably have no financial incentive in lying. Now, with online reviews, you can either go with a professional reviewer (who may have received benefit to review the item favorably), or you can go to a user review site (Amazon or NewEgg's product pages).
The anonymity of the Internet means that the seller can pose as a user, and have user credibility when they should have seller credibility. And honestly, most products only have a few dozen to a hundred or so reviews. It would be a fairly simple matter for the seller to have a marketer write up three falsified positive reviews (or even a poor review of the competitors' product) a week, and easily overwhelm the false reviews with a flood of good reviews.
I'm a system analyst, and I support the hardware distribution that goes into this.
This system doesn't have to help get the mail there, it just has to report when it's arrived. Mail processing is done by large machines in localized distribution centers, and then shipped to the local post offices where they get it into the hands of the carrier on the route for that day.The data entry is handled by hand held scanners that upload the data back to the LIM (local server). The central computers are most likely in one of three spots (I'm not sure, I don't know how they're configured, I just support the system they're ordered through) either in Eagan, Raleigh, or St. Louis. At least, that's where I know of major server locations in the USPS. But I'm not sure the information is sent to the local servers wirelessly. I know that the local locations have USB cradles, so I assume the data is kept on the handheld unit all day, then uploaded when the carrier returns to the office, but that's just a guess. If that's the case, the machine sits idle most of the day, then runs most of it's work in the hour or two when the carriers return to the office in a batch run.
WGA will still be required, right? Onerous licensing that means you don't have final authority over your OS? As far as increasing their market share, most Apple fans probably aren't going to be buying Win 7, and many Linux users probably won't either.
$49 for Home Ultimate, and $99 for Professional for a pre-order upgrade. (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/buy/offers/pre-order.aspx)
I don't have Windows at home, but if I were considering upgrading, I would probably pay this price, and wait until I was convinced 7 was ready to install it.
If you pre-order, you can upgrade from Vista for half of these prices. Limited time, don't wait!!
Only if you don't forget to factor in the risk of Tesla not being able to pay back the loan. I haven't seen their numbers, but to assume no risk is make the same error that caused problems for Bear Sterns, Freddie and Fanny Mac, AIG, and others.