Daycare measles herd immunity is impossible. It's straight math.
#1 Can't give MMR below 12 months in age. Period. Exception: infants traveling internationally warrant the risk.
#2 Second dose is usually given 1 year after the first dose (at annual checkup), but at least 4 weeks after first dose, and prior to age 4 * immunity level 4 weeks after first dose: 74.3 % - 25.7% failure rate for single dose vaccination * immunity level 4 weeks after second dose: 87.5% - 12.5% failure rate for two dose vaccination
#3 6% of individuals cannot be vaccinate
#4 Herd immunity threshold for measles: R0 of 12-18 = 83%-94% must be immune (not just vaccinated)
#5 12.5% + 6% = 18.5% ; 100% - 18.5% = 81.5% ; 81.5% 83% -- herd immunity is not possible
By all means, get your kid vaccinated for measles *WHEN THEY ARE OLD ENOUGH*.
If you are able to insist upon it, in fact, get the daycare workers to have an antibody titer to verify they are in fact immune, and revaccinate the shit out of them until they test positive for immunity before letting them around your kids.
Just don't do it because someone appeals to your social conscience about "herd immunity" for measles; they are relying on you being bad at math.
If the same person comes back and preaches herd immunity for Diptheria, Mumps, Polio, Rubella, or Smallpox -- *YES*, herd immunity for *those diseases* is possible.
PS: Pertussis (whooping cough) has the same problem as measles (R0 12-17, threshold 92%-94%).
Next 5 years - maybe sooner for the brands with CEOs under 30
I am less optimistic.
Unless the parts are all things that have to be sintered by a repair shop, most of the value in being an appliance dealer is in the repair business for intentional wear parts. It's what you get in exchange for selling the appliances in the first place. It's no mistake that the repair truck "happens" to have the part you need on the truck.
I suspect that it's going to take as long as it takes to get a portable system truck-mounted in something a small as a panel-van.
The major benefit to the OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) is an end run around the parts stocking requirement for 10 years, which is a legal hurdle to the introduction of any new product, including cars, in the U.S. today. But the dealers are still going to have to get their cut, or there will be no reasonable sales channel, since there's still a desire to see and touch in person the thing before you buy it, especially for major purchases, but even for relatively minor ones you will have to live with for a long time.
As an example: bathroom fixtures are relatively cheap and easy to replace, compared to a dishwasher, but you don't see that happen a lot. So there are still places where you can go to see what a given fixture looks like installed, and touch it, and play with all the levers and knobs, and decide if it's for you or not. I don't think that's going away soon for high inertia items, regardless of cost. Seeing is often not enough.
No, I'm talking about solo contractors with high reputation. Hiring out to shoddy subcontractors will affect your reputation and actually prevent you from making more.
I think you are misunderstanding. You farm the *same* project out to 6 *different* subcontractors, and take the best one, and present it as your work product. Wash, rinse repeat.
It's also possible to get to that point with one lucky contract, but you can bet that if someone is making 100K at one of these sites, they can make 500K by hanging out their own shingle instead of using the site as an intermediary, and paying site fees. Reputation is not some score on some web site, reputation is something which happens word of mouth - which is incidentally, how you get contracting work, once you've got a reputation.
I suspect you of being here solely to push "Elance" as a platform for what I, personally, do not see as a viable business model for anyone but the platform vendor.
Honestly, I thought this was going to be a kernel rant, and I came loaded for bear: there's a lot that needs fixed about the Linux kernel and the processes and relationships between stakeholders.
But let's address the subject of the blog post instead, because there's a lot of fodder there too.
Everything complained about in the blog post is not a Linux problem, it's a Linux distribution problem, since the distributions are what add the user space components that are doing things like automatically mounting his phone so that something else in user space can't talk to the second control channel on the USB interface (because the phone uses the primary command channel to switch to the second command channel, and it's in use by the mount).
This is basically the problem you are going to face on a distribution without an overall architectural design for the user/kernel interaction, and interaction between user space components that allow for layered access.
For the "It's a camera! It's a phone! It's a mass storage device!" problem, I don't have a specific answer; I'll note that uugetty solved the contention for typed use of a resource problem for modems ("It's an inbound modem! It's an outbound modem!") in the 1980's in HoneyDanBer UUCP. And they did it by having an integrated model that all the consumers used. IT's called a layered approach to software development.
I think the big driver for user space problems is that a lot of Open Source people believe that *their* program is the most important thing your computer can possibly be running, and if it interferes with someone else's use of something, so what? The computer is still performing it's *most* important function, which is to run *their* work product.
Even Apple is not immune from these problems; there are third party phone tools that can do nifty things with pretty much any cell phone and come with all sorts of USB cable ends that plug into this USB cable adapter, but the OS grabs the phones out from under the software, and you have to hack the device ID list in a plist to get it to work like it's supposed to (then iPhoto, etc., can no longer see the phone). But at least on Apple systems, there's one place to go to to fix it, the fix is well known, and when Apple is informed of the problem, they generally fix their software to "get out of the way" (or tell the third party how to do it temporarily so their software will work).
What's really missing for Linux distributions, honestly is...
(1) An architect with a holistic vision (2) A project manager for the components (3) Productization - people in Open Source only want to work on fun stuff, not on boring stuff that makes stuff actually usable (4) Usability engineering (5) Interface contracts which don't change over time (6) A way to shunt third party installed software (i.e. "apt get", etc. stuff) off into an isolated hierarchy so it doesn't screw with normal operation (7) Documentation that doesn't have to change over time...in other words, if you want it to look like a commercial OS distribution, you have to approach it as one. And that's not happening.
All of these "marketplaces" typically suffer from what I call "Chinese restaurant syndrome".
Every month or so, a new Chinese restaurant opens in this little office park my area. The undercut prices by as much as 20% the existing Chinese restaurant in the same office park, and attempt to lure in customers with a lower price. Which they do successfully. The restaurant that was already in that little office park goes under, not having any float to carry themselves over, since they spent all of it establishing themselves the same way.
Then you end up with one Chinese restaurant in the office park.
Then, having established customers, and eliminated their competition, they raise their prices. Which is OK, they are the only game in town, and their prices were absurdly (read: loss-leader) low in the first place. They surprisingly believe that in establishing a customer base, they have also bought those customers future loyalty - which they have not.
Then a new Chinese restaurant opens, and the cycle repeats: a long daisy-chain of new Chinese restaurants. I imagine them stretching, down through time, until Deckard from Blade Runner eats at one of them.
The point is, that the "consultants" on these sites are all new Chinese restaurants. There is always someone who will take a loss on a project in order to "establish themselves", and then try to raise their bid price, based on whatever passes for a "reputation scoring system" on the site in question.
Consumers of the site, however, look at everyone who bids on their job as fungible, and unless someone with a terrible "reputation score" is stupid enough to believe they will ever be hired by anyone, ever again, the lowest bidder always wins the bid.
A long chain of Chinese restaurants, stretching down through time...
And the only kind of jobs that are on that site are going to be jobs where the outcome is "nice to have, but not required", meaning they'll be happily surprised if the bidder produces something usable, but they really don't care if they totally screw up, since it's a slot machine pull anyway, and they only invested a nickel in the slots to begin with.
It's basically a sucker bet for the bidder, and a sucker bet for the person bidding, with the only winner being "The House" - the site hosting the arrangement.
There's plenty of freelancers on Elance who do over 100K a year. It's often public in their profile / application. How do you explain that?
Usually, the "person" actually farms the contracts out to a team of subcontractors in Sao Palo, and then takes credit for having done all the work themselves.
While 2 & 3 could include this, his paper didn't claim they did. It's the primary value which I've seen applied to selection of Open Source Software valuation in many of the companies where I've worked:
4. time to market reduction
Even if you are leveraging a single part, the time savings vastly outweigh in many cases the R&D cost savings. Admittedly, this is only applicable to markets where there is a benefit to "first mover advantage" (typical software/internet startup problem), but it seems to apply equally well to hardware, if the open hardware in question is being utilized as a component of a larger system.
You are aware that mentally ill people and drug addicts are always going to spend whatever cash they are given, and remain homeless, right?
You are aware that you're both mischaracterizing what was said and that you're spouting nonsense, right? The GP didn't say "throw money at mentally ill and drug-addicted homeless people".
No, he said throw money at poverty and homelessness.
You are, of course, free to argue with The National Coalition for the Homeless:
"According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 20 to 25% of the homeless population in the United States suffers from some form of severe mental illness." http://www.nationalhomeless.or...
"Although obtaining an accurate, recent count is difficult, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2003) estimates, 38% of homeless people were dependent on alcohol and 26% abused other drugs." http://www.nationalhomeless.or...
I'm not making a value judgement here, and yes, I realize that there is some overlap in those groups, due to the tendency for mentally ill persons to "self medicate" using those drugs available to them. The point is, these problems were nowhere near as prevalent before Governor Ronald Reagan instituted new rules on involuntary commitment in California (as a budget measure), and the NY ACLU won their supreme court case about non compis mentis people being able to refuse treatment for mental health issues. Without treatment, many become homeless.
Ad you realize that poverty is defined as a certain percentage of the population at the bottom end of the bell curve, right?
Not legally it's not. Economics... life in general, in fact, isn't the kind of zero-sum game you seem to be implying it is. Poverty is defined by a number of guidelines. There are a number of factors. Whether the subject actually has adequate nutrition is an important one. Under those guidelines, 16% of Americans and 20% of American children live in poverty.
Poverty is defined politically, and it's whatever's convenient for the politician defining it that day.
It also has a dictionary definition. From that dictionary definition, it's easy to come up with an economic definition.
Look, we've been in Lyndon B. Johnson's "War on Poverty" for 51 years now. You can't win a war if you are unwilling to define victory conditions. We've proven that in the Vietnam conflict, and every war/conflict we've entered since then. When can we stop fighting "The War On Drugs"? When can we stop fighting "The War On Terror"?
What is the F'ing definition of victory conditions in "The War On Poverty"?
If we go by your definition, even a Basic Guaranteed Income can't possibly stop poverty. It's definitionally always going to be with us. We can either accept that it's always going to be with us, and declare at least an armistace, or we can keep throwing money at it with no hope of ever, ever winning, unless we are willing to implement a fully managed economy.
And you're aware that basic health care is already fixed, and was before the ACA, sincethe hospitals are legally required to treat you if you present at the ER, right?
What idiot/liar keeps spreading this load of nonsense around? Hospitals are legally required to _stabilize_ you! That means that, if you show up dying of something acute, they have to take you in, but can kick you out the door the moment you're not in critical condition anymore. If you show up, for example, with a terminal case of cancer, they don't have to treat, or even diagnose your cancer. If you have immediate, life-threatening symptoms, they have to provide some treatment for those symptoms. In a practical sense, it pretty much just means that they have to p
> You are aware that mentally ill people and drug addicts are always going to spend whatever cash they are given
You have obviously no clue.
You obviously have not worked with chronically mentally ill people, nor gone out on an intervention outcall because someone was living in a dumpster because the metal was the only way to shield them, and their perfectly good room at the supported housing facility you had them in before they went off their meds is empty because they decided their room was bugged.
I've worked closely with mentally ill persons as a volunteer (my mother was a psychiatric social worker for a county mental health program, and her specific field was the chronically mentally ill), and still remain friends with some of them to this day, and get them intervention if I know they are in trouble.
Sadly, California county mental health programs are *fricking mean*. I ran into a man having a conversation with his voices, and he has either decompensated or was in the process of decompensating, at the Subway sandwich shop off DeAnza. He wasn't hurting anyone, but when I called Santa Clara County mental health to get someone out to help him, they refused, and said that if he was a problem, I should call the police.
Had I done that, the situation would have been very very bad. What he needed was an intake/intervention person on call to come out and talk him in, and then to see his caseworker, and get back on his meds. He *DIDN'T* need to be 5150'ed, and he surea as HELL didn't need to be dragged off to county lockup by jack-booted Nazis for a couple of days until some asshole too lazy to take a trip out with a deputy in the background for backup could then drag him off and shoot him full of Thorazine for 3 days.
So yes, I kinda *DO* know what I'm talking about. Asshole.
The single biggest reason is can you see some rich person buying a used one, like John Travolta bought a used 707, and deciding to take a planeload of ceramic coated rebar to orbit and drop it on peoples heads at 22,000 MPH?
Someone could do a lot more damage just by crashing the 707. For that matter, a 1 meter length of #8 rebar is about 4 kilograms, so, at 22,000 MPH would have about 193 MJ of kinetic energy, if it actually reached the ground with the same amount of energy it had before de-orbiting (which would be ridiculous).
I was being facetious about rebar. Yes, they would be more like shaped tungsten telephone poles with control fins. The numbers I've seen claimed 0.12kt of TNT.
For some reason, the idea keeps coming up.
It'd be quite useful as a "terror weapon or bunker buster".
But assume you're right, and they only drop 1 ton conventional bombs from orbit. Private individuals aren't going to necessarily obey national treaties voluntarily for fear of retribution.
Q1: How much *additional information* did you end up learning through your research before you got to the information you wanted to get to?
Q2: How much *additional information* do you get when you Google something or look it up on Wikipedia?
Q3: Compare and contrast the magnitudes of both values from Q1 & Q2
Q4: Is it *really* better today, where you lose the exposure to that additional information, some of which you inevitably integrate into your knowledge base and internalize, and may happen to find useful later?
In Sweden, we have consistently been going less and less memorization and this has led to lower and lower results on international tests like PISA. Much of the discussion is why we perform lower, and it's almost never even suggested that the tests are poor indicators for actually being successful in a chosen field. It's almost always seen as a failure of the school system.
I'm not so sure.
The biggest advantage of rote memorization early on is that you learn to accumulate minute details quickly, this really helps in certain types of education later on.
The biggest disadvantage is that you mold yourself into a stuck form since you use that system a bit too often.
I disagree.
We did rote memorization of multiplication, addition, subtraction, and division. We also did rote memorization of spelling. We also learned process for math and for spelling: none of the "new math" or "whole language" reading crap which sabotages you later on.
If I see a word written in the Roman alphabet, I don't care if it's Latin, Greek, Romanized Japanese, or a really obscure English word: I can pronounce it with 99.? % accuracy; if I hear one, I will likely spell it correctly; if I see it written while reading, and have heard it but never seen it written before: no problem. If I see two numbers, I can add them instantly without thinking about it, if they are two digits or less, and very quickly, if they are more digits than that.
These are things which are handicapped by present teaching methods: they are the excluded cases, *particularly* the ability to recognize written words one has heard but never seen written before. It's like having a tiny square which you can extend horizontally or vertically, but not into the vast unmapped space; sadly, slashdot won't let me ASCII-art it for you, but...
Imagine a graph where quadrant 2 is a small square, quadrant 4 is a big square, and quadrants 1 and 3 are long a thin horizonatally and vertically, respectively.
You get taught quadrant 2, you can generalize to quadrants 1 & 3, and if something is in quadreant 4: you're screwed.
It's definitely a failure of the school system that these skills are not taught to students because we have changed our teaching methods. The sad part is that you tend to get better standardized test results early on with these methods, and then they rapidly fall off as complexity goes up afterwards, i.e. the first time you try to do trig, or the first time you have to read a book and do a book report, etc..
The new methods don't work, except to teach shortcuts; the "whole language" you get for free, over time; the math shortcuts, you can learn later *after* you can operate from memory.
I don't understand why the idea is being implemented in such a modest manner. The animation has the rocket stage carried aloft for ignition at high altitude by what looks like an F-18. While I don't doubt the performance of the Hornet's engines, wouldn't it make more sense to extend the payload capacity with a larger carrier craft? Say something on the order of the 747-based shuttle carriers?
Absolute ceiling on a Boeing 747 is ~51,000 feet. That's about the service ceiling for most military jets, and their absolute ceiling is much hgher than that. The SR-71 Blackbird had a service ceiling of ~92,000 feet; its absolute ceiling remains classified.
That's 5,000 feet under the service ceiling of the F-14; A Mig-25 on a ballistic arc (after its air-breathing engines were no longer functioning, it was ballistic until it reentered the atmosphere) is recorded to have hit 123,000 feet in 1977. The ballistic arc on an F-18 should be substantially better than that, but I suspect if you want actual numbers, they are classified.
The point is that the first part of getting up there is the hardest, and military and military-grade airgraft are substantially better at getting up higher because they can reach a higher altitude, and can be going multiple Mach at the time they go ballistic (think "muzzle velocity").
The government needs to cut back on their military, and deal with the problems of homelessness, poverty, lack of basic health care for millions of Americans, and government corruption.
You are aware that mentally ill people and drug addicts are always going to spend whatever cash they are given, and remain homeless, right?
Ad you realize that poverty is defined as a certain percentage of the population at the bottom end of the bell curve, right? It's not like someone has fixed the problem by, say:
so we can just throw money at it to make it go away, right?
And you're aware that basic health care is already fixed, and was before the ACA, sincethe hospitals are legally required to treat you if you present at the ER, right?
And you realize that we ALREADY spend enough on government corruption, right? WTH do you want to spend MORE?
Developed by Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grunman who worked on it around the late 1990's-early 2000's? Called the X-33
The DC-X is a better example, since it doesn't require a runway, it could also be used as a lunar lander and return vehicle. The companies for both got eaten by Boeing.
The single biggest reason is can you see some rich person buying a used one, like John Travolta bought a used 707, and deciding to take a planeload of ceramic coated rebar to orbit and drop it on peoples heads at 22,000 MPH? Cheap access to orbit by private individuals is not in the best interests of those currently in power.
That said, it'd be nice if the owners of the patents on the bell-less rocket nozzle linear aerospike engine would throw their patents open for Armadillo, SpaceX, and the rest; rocket engine bell are *heavy* plus there's the cooling system weight as well.
Did they bother to fix heartbleed and POODLE while they were in there, or are they using an old stack, and it's still perfectly posible to implement the attack with a single additional step? In other words is this a "We must take some action!" fix, or is it a "We must take effective action!" fix?
Allover internet we see a high need for AEDs, and schools and other public places in big need for AEDs, due to very high price.
What would./ readers suggest?
Tort reform to reduce insurance liability for the manufacturers so that you aren't paying for "accidentally kill someone / fail to save someone ho was beyond saving" insurance in the price of the device for litigious people grieving for their dead loved one a whole lot more than their dead loved one's life is actually worth, compared to the number of people who could be saved were the devices cheaper.
Also, the insurance companies get paid 3 times on each device:
(1) The manufacturer's liability insurance
(2) The emergency responders malpractice and/or liability insurance
(3) For you to go to the hospital afterwards
Seems kinda wrong to pay an AIG member company 3 times for the same thing, doesn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
Daycare measles herd immunity is impossible. It's straight math.
#1 Can't give MMR below 12 months in age. Period. Exception: infants traveling internationally warrant the risk.
#2 Second dose is usually given 1 year after the first dose (at annual checkup), but at least 4 weeks after first dose, and prior to age 4
* immunity level 4 weeks after first dose: 74.3 % - 25.7% failure rate for single dose vaccination
* immunity level 4 weeks after second dose: 87.5% - 12.5% failure rate for two dose vaccination
#3 6% of individuals cannot be vaccinate
#4 Herd immunity threshold for measles: R0 of 12-18 = 83%-94% must be immune (not just vaccinated)
#5 12.5% + 6% = 18.5% ; 100% - 18.5% = 81.5% ; 81.5% 83% -- herd immunity is not possible
By all means, get your kid vaccinated for measles *WHEN THEY ARE OLD ENOUGH*.
If you are able to insist upon it, in fact, get the daycare workers to have an antibody titer to verify they are in fact immune, and revaccinate the shit out of them until they test positive for immunity before letting them around your kids.
Just don't do it because someone appeals to your social conscience about "herd immunity" for measles; they are relying on you being bad at math.
If the same person comes back and preaches herd immunity for Diptheria, Mumps, Polio, Rubella, or Smallpox -- *YES*, herd immunity for *those diseases* is possible.
PS: Pertussis (whooping cough) has the same problem as measles (R0 12-17, threshold 92%-94%).
Next 5 years - maybe sooner for the brands with CEOs under 30
I am less optimistic.
Unless the parts are all things that have to be sintered by a repair shop, most of the value in being an appliance dealer is in the repair business for intentional wear parts. It's what you get in exchange for selling the appliances in the first place. It's no mistake that the repair truck "happens" to have the part you need on the truck.
I suspect that it's going to take as long as it takes to get a portable system truck-mounted in something a small as a panel-van.
The major benefit to the OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) is an end run around the parts stocking requirement for 10 years, which is a legal hurdle to the introduction of any new product, including cars, in the U.S. today. But the dealers are still going to have to get their cut, or there will be no reasonable sales channel, since there's still a desire to see and touch in person the thing before you buy it, especially for major purchases, but even for relatively minor ones you will have to live with for a long time.
As an example: bathroom fixtures are relatively cheap and easy to replace, compared to a dishwasher, but you don't see that happen a lot. So there are still places where you can go to see what a given fixture looks like installed, and touch it, and play with all the levers and knobs, and decide if it's for you or not. I don't think that's going away soon for high inertia items, regardless of cost. Seeing is often not enough.
No, I'm talking about solo contractors with high reputation. Hiring out to shoddy subcontractors will affect your reputation and actually prevent you from making more.
I think you are misunderstanding. You farm the *same* project out to 6 *different* subcontractors, and take the best one, and present it as your work product. Wash, rinse repeat.
It's also possible to get to that point with one lucky contract, but you can bet that if someone is making 100K at one of these sites, they can make 500K by hanging out their own shingle instead of using the site as an intermediary, and paying site fees. Reputation is not some score on some web site, reputation is something which happens word of mouth - which is incidentally, how you get contracting work, once you've got a reputation.
I suspect you of being here solely to push "Elance" as a platform for what I, personally, do not see as a viable business model for anyone but the platform vendor.
That's all user space.
Honestly, I thought this was going to be a kernel rant, and I came loaded for bear: there's a lot that needs fixed about the Linux kernel and the processes and relationships between stakeholders.
But let's address the subject of the blog post instead, because there's a lot of fodder there too.
Everything complained about in the blog post is not a Linux problem, it's a Linux distribution problem, since the distributions are what add the user space components that are doing things like automatically mounting his phone so that something else in user space can't talk to the second control channel on the USB interface (because the phone uses the primary command channel to switch to the second command channel, and it's in use by the mount).
This is basically the problem you are going to face on a distribution without an overall architectural design for the user/kernel interaction, and interaction between user space components that allow for layered access.
For the "It's a camera! It's a phone! It's a mass storage device!" problem, I don't have a specific answer; I'll note that uugetty solved the contention for typed use of a resource problem for modems ("It's an inbound modem! It's an outbound modem!") in the 1980's in HoneyDanBer UUCP. And they did it by having an integrated model that all the consumers used. IT's called a layered approach to software development.
I think the big driver for user space problems is that a lot of Open Source people believe that *their* program is the most important thing your computer can possibly be running, and if it interferes with someone else's use of something, so what? The computer is still performing it's *most* important function, which is to run *their* work product.
Even Apple is not immune from these problems; there are third party phone tools that can do nifty things with pretty much any cell phone and come with all sorts of USB cable ends that plug into this USB cable adapter, but the OS grabs the phones out from under the software, and you have to hack the device ID list in a plist to get it to work like it's supposed to (then iPhoto, etc., can no longer see the phone). But at least on Apple systems, there's one place to go to to fix it, the fix is well known, and when Apple is informed of the problem, they generally fix their software to "get out of the way" (or tell the third party how to do it temporarily so their software will work).
What's really missing for Linux distributions, honestly is...
(1) An architect with a holistic vision ...in other words, if you want it to look like a commercial OS distribution, you have to approach it as one. And that's not happening.
(2) A project manager for the components
(3) Productization - people in Open Source only want to work on fun stuff, not on boring stuff that makes stuff actually usable
(4) Usability engineering
(5) Interface contracts which don't change over time
(6) A way to shunt third party installed software (i.e. "apt get", etc. stuff) off into an isolated hierarchy so it doesn't screw with normal operation
(7) Documentation that doesn't have to change over time
All of these "marketplaces" typically suffer from what I call "Chinese restaurant syndrome".
Every month or so, a new Chinese restaurant opens in this little office park my area. The undercut prices by as much as 20% the existing Chinese restaurant in the same office park, and attempt to lure in customers with a lower price. Which they do successfully. The restaurant that was already in that little office park goes under, not having any float to carry themselves over, since they spent all of it establishing themselves the same way.
Then you end up with one Chinese restaurant in the office park.
Then, having established customers, and eliminated their competition, they raise their prices. Which is OK, they are the only game in town, and their prices were absurdly (read: loss-leader) low in the first place. They surprisingly believe that in establishing a customer base, they have also bought those customers future loyalty - which they have not.
Then a new Chinese restaurant opens, and the cycle repeats: a long daisy-chain of new Chinese restaurants. I imagine them stretching, down through time, until Deckard from Blade Runner eats at one of them.
The point is, that the "consultants" on these sites are all new Chinese restaurants. There is always someone who will take a loss on a project in order to "establish themselves", and then try to raise their bid price, based on whatever passes for a "reputation scoring system" on the site in question.
Consumers of the site, however, look at everyone who bids on their job as fungible, and unless someone with a terrible "reputation score" is stupid enough to believe they will ever be hired by anyone, ever again, the lowest bidder always wins the bid.
A long chain of Chinese restaurants, stretching down through time...
And the only kind of jobs that are on that site are going to be jobs where the outcome is "nice to have, but not required", meaning they'll be happily surprised if the bidder produces something usable, but they really don't care if they totally screw up, since it's a slot machine pull anyway, and they only invested a nickel in the slots to begin with.
It's basically a sucker bet for the bidder, and a sucker bet for the person bidding, with the only winner being "The House" - the site hosting the arrangement.
There's plenty of freelancers on Elance who do over 100K a year. It's often public in their profile / application. How do you explain that?
Usually, the "person" actually farms the contracts out to a team of subcontractors in Sao Palo, and then takes credit for having done all the work themselves.
Votes on how long it will be until we see this:
A washing machine or other appliance that comes with USB stick with design files for replacement parts?
I have no idea... but I'm sure it's a subject we will all be watching closely.
The problem with step 1 being "Did I hit a person?" is that step 2 could be "No? Then let me try again!".
He listed three, but missed the obvious one.
His 3:
1. downloaded substitution valuation
2. avoided reproduction valuation
3. market savings valuation
While 2 & 3 could include this, his paper didn't claim they did. It's the primary value which I've seen applied to selection of Open Source Software valuation in many of the companies where I've worked:
4. time to market reduction
Even if you are leveraging a single part, the time savings vastly outweigh in many cases the R&D cost savings. Admittedly, this is only applicable to markets where there is a benefit to "first mover advantage" (typical software/internet startup problem), but it seems to apply equally well to hardware, if the open hardware in question is being utilized as a component of a larger system.
Wow, the stairs and the rough terrain!
These things are getting scary good, and I can't believe I felt bad about the thing getting kicked!
You are aware that mentally ill people and drug addicts are always going to spend whatever cash they are given, and remain homeless, right?
You are aware that you're both mischaracterizing what was said and that you're spouting nonsense, right? The GP didn't say "throw money at mentally ill and drug-addicted homeless people".
No, he said throw money at poverty and homelessness.
You are, of course, free to argue with The National Coalition for the Homeless:
"According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 20 to 25% of the homeless population in the United States suffers from some form of severe mental illness."
http://www.nationalhomeless.or...
"Although obtaining an accurate, recent count is difficult, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2003) estimates, 38% of homeless people were dependent on alcohol and 26% abused other drugs."
http://www.nationalhomeless.or...
I'm not making a value judgement here, and yes, I realize that there is some overlap in those groups, due to the tendency for mentally ill persons to "self medicate" using those drugs available to them. The point is, these problems were nowhere near as prevalent before Governor Ronald Reagan instituted new rules on involuntary commitment in California (as a budget measure), and the NY ACLU won their supreme court case about non compis mentis people being able to refuse treatment for mental health issues. Without treatment, many become homeless.
Ad you realize that poverty is defined as a certain percentage of the population at the bottom end of the bell curve, right?
Not legally it's not. Economics... life in general, in fact, isn't the kind of zero-sum game you seem to be implying it is. Poverty is defined by a number of guidelines. There are a number of factors. Whether the subject actually has adequate nutrition is an important one. Under those guidelines, 16% of Americans and 20% of American children live in poverty.
Poverty is defined politically, and it's whatever's convenient for the politician defining it that day.
It also has a dictionary definition. From that dictionary definition, it's easy to come up with an economic definition.
Look, we've been in Lyndon B. Johnson's "War on Poverty" for 51 years now. You can't win a war if you are unwilling to define victory conditions. We've proven that in the Vietnam conflict, and every war/conflict we've entered since then. When can we stop fighting "The War On Drugs"? When can we stop fighting "The War On Terror"?
What is the F'ing definition of victory conditions in "The War On Poverty"?
If we go by your definition, even a Basic Guaranteed Income can't possibly stop poverty. It's definitionally always going to be with us. We can either accept that it's always going to be with us, and declare at least an armistace, or we can keep throwing money at it with no hope of ever, ever winning, unless we are willing to implement a fully managed economy.
And you're aware that basic health care is already fixed, and was before the ACA, sincethe hospitals are legally required to treat you if you present at the ER, right?
What idiot/liar keeps spreading this load of nonsense around? Hospitals are legally required to _stabilize_ you! That means that, if you show up dying of something acute, they have to take you in, but can kick you out the door the moment you're not in critical condition anymore. If you show up, for example, with a terminal case of cancer, they don't have to treat, or even diagnose your cancer. If you have immediate, life-threatening symptoms, they have to provide some treatment for those symptoms. In a practical sense, it pretty much just means that they have to p
> You are aware that mentally ill people and drug addicts are always going to spend whatever cash they are given
You have obviously no clue.
You obviously have not worked with chronically mentally ill people, nor gone out on an intervention outcall because someone was living in a dumpster because the metal was the only way to shield them, and their perfectly good room at the supported housing facility you had them in before they went off their meds is empty because they decided their room was bugged.
I've worked closely with mentally ill persons as a volunteer (my mother was a psychiatric social worker for a county mental health program, and her specific field was the chronically mentally ill), and still remain friends with some of them to this day, and get them intervention if I know they are in trouble.
Sadly, California county mental health programs are *fricking mean*. I ran into a man having a conversation with his voices, and he has either decompensated or was in the process of decompensating, at the Subway sandwich shop off DeAnza. He wasn't hurting anyone, but when I called Santa Clara County mental health to get someone out to help him, they refused, and said that if he was a problem, I should call the police.
Had I done that, the situation would have been very very bad. What he needed was an intake/intervention person on call to come out and talk him in, and then to see his caseworker, and get back on his meds. He *DIDN'T* need to be 5150'ed, and he surea as HELL didn't need to be dragged off to county lockup by jack-booted Nazis for a couple of days until some asshole too lazy to take a trip out with a deputy in the background for backup could then drag him off and shoot him full of Thorazine for 3 days.
So yes, I kinda *DO* know what I'm talking about. Asshole.
The single biggest reason is can you see some rich person buying a used one, like John Travolta bought a used 707, and deciding to take a planeload of ceramic coated rebar to orbit and drop it on peoples heads at 22,000 MPH?
Someone could do a lot more damage just by crashing the 707. For that matter, a 1 meter length of #8 rebar is about 4 kilograms, so, at 22,000 MPH would have about 193 MJ of kinetic energy, if it actually reached the ground with the same amount of energy it had before de-orbiting (which would be ridiculous).
I was being facetious about rebar. Yes, they would be more like shaped tungsten telephone poles with control fins. The numbers I've seen claimed 0.12kt of TNT.
For some reason, the idea keeps coming up.
It'd be quite useful as a "terror weapon or bunker buster".
But assume you're right, and they only drop 1 ton conventional bombs from orbit. Private individuals aren't going to necessarily obey national treaties voluntarily for fear of retribution.
I had to think "30 + 80 + 7".
Am I a stupid?
No, Just slower to answer.
Deceptively simple question time:
Q1: How much *additional information* did you end up learning through your research before you got to the information you wanted to get to?
Q2: How much *additional information* do you get when you Google something or look it up on Wikipedia?
Q3: Compare and contrast the magnitudes of both values from Q1 & Q2
Q4: Is it *really* better today, where you lose the exposure to that additional information, some of which you inevitably integrate into your knowledge base and internalize, and may happen to find useful later?
In Sweden, we have consistently been going less and less memorization and this has led to lower and lower results on international tests like PISA.
Much of the discussion is why we perform lower, and it's almost never even suggested that the tests are poor indicators for actually being successful in a chosen field.
It's almost always seen as a failure of the school system.
I'm not so sure.
The biggest advantage of rote memorization early on is that you learn to accumulate minute details quickly, this really helps in certain types of education later on.
The biggest disadvantage is that you mold yourself into a stuck form since you use that system a bit too often.
I disagree.
We did rote memorization of multiplication, addition, subtraction, and division. We also did rote memorization of spelling. We also learned process for math and for spelling: none of the "new math" or "whole language" reading crap which sabotages you later on.
If I see a word written in the Roman alphabet, I don't care if it's Latin, Greek, Romanized Japanese, or a really obscure English word: I can pronounce it with 99.? % accuracy; if I hear one, I will likely spell it correctly; if I see it written while reading, and have heard it but never seen it written before: no problem. If I see two numbers, I can add them instantly without thinking about it, if they are two digits or less, and very quickly, if they are more digits than that.
These are things which are handicapped by present teaching methods: they are the excluded cases, *particularly* the ability to recognize written words one has heard but never seen written before. It's like having a tiny square which you can extend horizontally or vertically, but not into the vast unmapped space; sadly, slashdot won't let me ASCII-art it for you, but...
Imagine a graph where quadrant 2 is a small square, quadrant 4 is a big square, and quadrants 1 and 3 are long a thin horizonatally and vertically, respectively.
You get taught quadrant 2, you can generalize to quadrants 1 & 3, and if something is in quadreant 4: you're screwed.
It's definitely a failure of the school system that these skills are not taught to students because we have changed our teaching methods. The sad part is that you tend to get better standardized test results early on with these methods, and then they rapidly fall off as complexity goes up afterwards, i.e. the first time you try to do trig, or the first time you have to read a book and do a book report, etc..
The new methods don't work, except to teach shortcuts; the "whole language" you get for free, over time; the math shortcuts, you can learn later *after* you can operate from memory.
I don't understand why the idea is being implemented in such a modest manner. The animation has the rocket stage carried aloft for ignition at high altitude by what looks like an F-18. While I don't doubt the performance of the Hornet's engines, wouldn't it make more sense to extend the payload capacity with a larger carrier craft? Say something on the order of the 747-based shuttle carriers?
Absolute ceiling on a Boeing 747 is ~51,000 feet. That's about the service ceiling for most military jets, and their absolute ceiling is much hgher than that. The SR-71 Blackbird had a service ceiling of ~92,000 feet; its absolute ceiling remains classified.
That's 5,000 feet under the service ceiling of the F-14; A Mig-25 on a ballistic arc (after its air-breathing engines were no longer functioning, it was ballistic until it reentered the atmosphere) is recorded to have hit 123,000 feet in 1977. The ballistic arc on an F-18 should be substantially better than that, but I suspect if you want actual numbers, they are classified.
The point is that the first part of getting up there is the hardest, and military and military-grade airgraft are substantially better at getting up higher because they can reach a higher altitude, and can be going multiple Mach at the time they go ballistic (think "muzzle velocity").
So no, a commercial jet is a bad idea.
The government needs to cut back on their military, and deal with the problems of homelessness, poverty, lack of basic health care for millions of Americans, and government corruption.
You are aware that mentally ill people and drug addicts are always going to spend whatever cash they are given, and remain homeless, right?
Ad you realize that poverty is defined as a certain percentage of the population at the bottom end of the bell curve, right? It's not like someone has fixed the problem by, say:
#define IMPOVERISHED_INCOME ((MINIMUM_WAGE * 40 * 52) -1)
so we can just throw money at it to make it go away, right?
And you're aware that basic health care is already fixed, and was before the ACA, sincethe hospitals are legally required to treat you if you present at the ER, right?
And you realize that we ALREADY spend enough on government corruption, right? WTH do you want to spend MORE?
Developed by Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grunman who worked on it around the late 1990's-early 2000's? Called the X-33
The DC-X is a better example, since it doesn't require a runway, it could also be used as a lunar lander and return vehicle. The companies for both got eaten by Boeing.
The single biggest reason is can you see some rich person buying a used one, like John Travolta bought a used 707, and deciding to take a planeload of ceramic coated rebar to orbit and drop it on peoples heads at 22,000 MPH? Cheap access to orbit by private individuals is not in the best interests of those currently in power.
That said, it'd be nice if the owners of the patents on the bell-less rocket nozzle linear aerospike engine would throw their patents open for Armadillo, SpaceX, and the rest; rocket engine bell are *heavy* plus there's the cooling system weight as well.
This is patently ridiculous!
In the RFID chip, we write the numbers much, much smaller than the WW2 tattoos!
This is the "Innovative Cloud of Internet of Things," that everyone is talking about!
Doctor: "Sorry, Mr. PolygamousRanchKid, but your urine is a bit cloudy; I'd like to run a couple more tests..."
So; it was a move to HTTPS...
http://grahamcluley.com/2015/0...
Did they bother to fix heartbleed and POODLE while they were in there, or are they using an old stack, and it's still perfectly posible to implement the attack with a single additional step? In other words is this a "We must take some action!" fix, or is it a "We must take effective action!" fix?
Allover internet we see a high need for AEDs, and schools and other public places in big need for AEDs, due to very high price.
What would ./ readers suggest?
Tort reform to reduce insurance liability for the manufacturers so that you aren't paying for "accidentally kill someone / fail to save someone ho was beyond saving" insurance in the price of the device for litigious people grieving for their dead loved one a whole lot more than their dead loved one's life is actually worth, compared to the number of people who could be saved were the devices cheaper.
Also, the insurance companies get paid 3 times on each device:
(1) The manufacturer's liability insurance
(2) The emergency responders malpractice and/or liability insurance
(3) For you to go to the hospital afterwards
Seems kinda wrong to pay an AIG member company 3 times for the same thing, doesn't it?
If you can't add without a calculator 33 and 84 in your head and get an answer instantly, then you are fucked up.
If you have to think about it at all, then your education has been wrong.
There is value to pages and pages of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division work. And in not being able to access a calculator to do it.