Hmm. I wonder what that strap holding my safety goggles on was, then... Weird, I could have sworn is was an elastic fabric, with some fabric-style padding around the face.
Most of those costs come from the name and rarity, and the high price point that drives certain types of people to want it simply because it is expensive and rare. The ingenious IP isn't that expensive, or said costs could easily be recouped just by spreading it in lots of additional vehicles at a lower price point (as eventually happens). Or are you going to tell me this $41,500 purse is filled with ingenious IP as well?
Which is why I said "globally". He's left for the U.S., but the comment you replied mentioned needing to go to Europe to find a true "leftist". The U.S. as a whole is decidedly Right from a global perspective. As I said -- Democrats (from this global perspective), are Center-Right, Republicans (again, from this global perspective) are Right to Far Right. Bernie is left enough of the common Democrat to maybe make it back to Center or even slightly Left, but would not be considered "leftist".
I also disagree with your perception of Obama's actual policies and actions (as opposed to his rhetoric). Going solely from what he personally has done as President (i.e. primarily continuing and extending the policies George W. Bush set into place, defending the need for Patriot Act powers), he'd probably be hailed as the best Republican president we've ever had if he had an "R" by his name.
I pulled it long ago from the sources cited in that footnote (along with all the car analogies used here on Slashdot). 6 years old, but I dont' think ICEs have changed much in that time.
From my discussions with people in other areas, it seems that by global standards, most Democrats are Center-Right (and Republicans even further Right than that, though honestly not that far off in the majority of their platform - the large parts neither party ever really talk about). I will agree that Sanders is likely at least Center, if not slightly Left, but in many places, that still wouldn't make him a "leftist". He'd still be "centrist".
Response to your OT thought: It's still probably a net gain, mostly because gas-powered personal vehicles are just horribly inefficient. Consider this: it is more efficient to use the gasoline intended for your vehicle in a full-size gasoline-fueled power plant, generate electricity, send that electricity across power lines across long distances and incur lossage there, store it in a battery, incurring additional lossage, then use that to power an electric vehicle. All of those extra losses are still more efficient than just using the gasoline directly.
So, let's look at electric car usage (which, as noted, is more efficient than a gas car). The average EV uses around 30 kWh for 100 miles. Helpfully, this is pretty close to the average daily usage for an American home, which is around 30kWh as well. Average driving is ~33 miles a day. Given that your major usages for power are likely to be heating or cooling related (e.g. refrigeration, A/C, washer/dryer), I don't think minor increases from a larger TV and such will match the significant difference of reducing the initial consumption by 1/4.
Assume two power supplies with identical efficiency measures (say, 95+). One is intended for a maximum output of 600 Watts, the other for a maximum output of 1200 Watts. I'm drawing 500 Watts. Shouldn't they have nearly identical amounts of total heat output and efficiency? I'm not sure about the "die quicker" part as well, but that's a separate piece.
Now assume I have a fixed budget, and can get one of 2 PSUs that fit my budget: Option 1 is a 1200 Watt unit that's below the 75+ rating, and Option 2 is a 600 Watt unit with a 95+ rating. From my understanding, as long as I'm drawing under that 600 Watts, the lower wattage PSU should be more efficient. That's the whole point of the rating. Are you saying that simply because it has more overhead, the higher wattage PSU will be significantly more efficient for some reason at lower outputs?
And what about product placement in the show itself? Watching your favorite characters drinking Brand drinks while using Brand computer, and wearing Brand clothing, while discussing how much they like Brand OtherProducts. In the background there's a couple billboards and posters that they can digitally replace ads on so even if you watch re-runs 10 years later there's current ad campaigns in it. That's spliced in. Good luck getting your automatic filter to pull that out.
As much as I enjoy a cheap shot at Fox News, it's more likely that Moderate Republicans haven't had a candidate they really like in years, so they need to evaluate all of them and switch between candidates constantly to find someone vaguely close to what they want.
Bee Keepers don't need to regulate temperature in any way. The bees do that for themselves (in the wild as well as in keeper's hives). They do need enough honey to make it through the winter, though.
Your lack of understanding comes from a flawed premise. Common Core is not a Federal thing. It is being run by a coalition of states. They had educators create guidelines for what students should know at various grade levels. Educators (good ones, even) joined in on this effort (which contradicts your point) -- most teachers, since there's no recognition as you noted, genuinely care about teaching kids, and give a ton of their time freely in pursuit of that goal. This was just another place they could do that.
Common Core does not directly stipulate curriculum or implementation. The vast majority of problems with "Common Core" are not with the Common Core itself, but the poor implementation of Common Core guidelines by For-Profit companies like Pearson, or how those guidelines were adopted by state legislatures (which generally consisted of "We'll buy this company's books and curricula and tests, and then have every school use them and if students don't do well we punish the teachers").
Steal has a definition. Specifically "the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently." Downloading without permission is not stealing, as you have no intention of depriving the owner of the use or benefit of the property. It is a copyright violation. That's why it's charged under the DMCA.
The dirt road is on the wrong end there. I wanted a nice paved road from my house to the highway. This company agreed to provide an unlimited use nice paved road that reached the highway for a reasonable fee that I paid. Since I didn't use it terribly often for years, I didn't notice that the off-ramp was actually metered and it was not an unlimited access route.
However, I started ordering goods from Amazon. Amazon started sending trucks with goods I had ordered. They got past the highway and then couldn't always reach my my nice paved road. The company I paid for unlimited nice paved road usage was not providing the service for which I had contracted. Rather than admit that they should not have offered a service which they could not provide, they went to Amazon and said "Hey, if you're going to send so many trucks down this road, can you pay for improvements to it?"
That wasn't Amazon's job, though. They shouldn't have to pay anything for that. I should. I'm the one that requested the contents of those trucks come this way. The road company should have come to me and admitted that they lied about being able to provide unlimited access at the advertised capacity and cost. They didn't, because they knew people would be upset with that breach of contract, particularly when it was revealed that this road company had repeatedly posted record profit instead of steadily investing in the full measure of necessary improvements to meet the demands I was making upon the roadway.
When ISPs were services that worked over telephone lines, they were information services. These days, they are clearly telecommunication services, or that physical portion of their business model should be split off to be such.
Right -- the problem here is we have private companies that have a mandate for Universal Coverage, and receive tax-money to provide that Coverage, but then fail to live up to the mandate and instead cherry-pick easy spots to provide coverage while making record profits by pocketing the difference. Further, when they are called on this, they resist any attempt to rescind that monopoly and recover that tax money to put it towards actually filling in those gaps (i.e. a public utility) and providing the agreed upon coverage, and the state (likely in collusion with said companies) refuses to actually prosecute them for contract violations (so the existing legal remedies are not, in fact, working at all).
For example: New Jersey and NJ Bell (now NJ Verizon) - commitment to 100% broadband coverage (which specifically defines broadband as 45Mbps) by 2010, took the money, failed to even come close to compliance, posted hefty profit (so obviously not putting that money into infrastructure improvements to fulfill said contract), and a few years after the contract end-date got the goal post moved to allow 4G coverage and significantly slower capacity lines to count instead of being required to either pay back the monies taken or to fulfill the original deal.
Knowing networking doesn't necessarily inherently cloud one's judgment, but it could be a contributing factor to having clouded judgment regarding certain products unless you intentionally account for it. Say someone asks me for a recommendation on what sort of product to get -- here, being technically knowledgeable can easily cloud my judgment unless I consider the user's end-needs as well. I know how to circumvent the flaws in a more complicated system and thus might minimize those flaws compared to flaws in a simpler system that cannot be mitigated, and I also tend to desire access the benefits such complexity allows and would chafe at the lack of such things in the simpler system. However, someone without my knowledge will flounder on the more complex system due to those flaws I minimize, and will not even be aware of the flaws with the simpler system because they have no need for that functionality. The right choice for me is not the right choice for everyone.
For example, I dislike Apple products because I am knowledgeable and like using my products in certain ways that are antithetical to Apple's standard practices (I also often have aesthetics issues with many of their design choices, but that's usually separate). However, I'm also aware that for people that just want the device to work with minimal configuration, that use a more limited subset of the functionality available, and that are happy to stay inside the walled garden, Apple products can be comparatively ideal (e.g. my parents).
Yes, as long as they aren't causing a direct disturbance in the store or harassing other customers, I would. I might also make sure to get good pictures of them with the security system, and depending on how serious I thought they were (people talk about crazy stuff all the time when in stores that they don't actually follow through on), I might report it to the police and/or advise local synagogues that if they are victims of vandalism I might have relevant evidence for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. I wonder what that strap holding my safety goggles on was, then... Weird, I could have sworn is was an elastic fabric, with some fabric-style padding around the face.
Only if you can find someone else to work that keyboard for you.
Most of those costs come from the name and rarity, and the high price point that drives certain types of people to want it simply because it is expensive and rare. The ingenious IP isn't that expensive, or said costs could easily be recouped just by spreading it in lots of additional vehicles at a lower price point (as eventually happens). Or are you going to tell me this $41,500 purse is filled with ingenious IP as well?
The nice thing about being in the gutter is that there's nowhere to go but up.
Don't be so sure... there's always the storm sewer. Or the guy handing you a shovel and telling you to start digging.
We all know. "Hail Hydra."
Which is why I said "globally". He's left for the U.S., but the comment you replied mentioned needing to go to Europe to find a true "leftist". The U.S. as a whole is decidedly Right from a global perspective. As I said -- Democrats (from this global perspective), are Center-Right, Republicans (again, from this global perspective) are Right to Far Right. Bernie is left enough of the common Democrat to maybe make it back to Center or even slightly Left, but would not be considered "leftist".
I also disagree with your perception of Obama's actual policies and actions (as opposed to his rhetoric). Going solely from what he personally has done as President (i.e. primarily continuing and extending the policies George W. Bush set into place, defending the need for Patriot Act powers), he'd probably be hailed as the best Republican president we've ever had if he had an "R" by his name.
[1] Electrical energy is created by burning fossil fuels in a power plant at 40% efficiency, followed by transmitting it to your house at 93% efficiency, and using it in an electric vehicle at 92% efficiency, providing a total efficiency of around 34% for an electric vehicle. Crude oil refineries operate at 75% efficiency, and gasoline distribution might cause another 6% energy loss. Since internal combustion engines are only 20% efficient, total efficiency would be around 14%. Assuming that the natural gas and oil to power our vehicles comes from the same well, we can directly compare these efficiencies, and thus conclude that electric vehicles are significantly more efficient.
I pulled it long ago from the sources cited in that footnote (along with all the car analogies used here on Slashdot). 6 years old, but I dont' think ICEs have changed much in that time.
From my discussions with people in other areas, it seems that by global standards, most Democrats are Center-Right (and Republicans even further Right than that, though honestly not that far off in the majority of their platform - the large parts neither party ever really talk about). I will agree that Sanders is likely at least Center, if not slightly Left, but in many places, that still wouldn't make him a "leftist". He'd still be "centrist".
Response to your OT thought: It's still probably a net gain, mostly because gas-powered personal vehicles are just horribly inefficient. Consider this: it is more efficient to use the gasoline intended for your vehicle in a full-size gasoline-fueled power plant, generate electricity, send that electricity across power lines across long distances and incur lossage there, store it in a battery, incurring additional lossage, then use that to power an electric vehicle. All of those extra losses are still more efficient than just using the gasoline directly.
So, let's look at electric car usage (which, as noted, is more efficient than a gas car). The average EV uses around 30 kWh for 100 miles. Helpfully, this is pretty close to the average daily usage for an American home, which is around 30kWh as well. Average driving is ~33 miles a day. Given that your major usages for power are likely to be heating or cooling related (e.g. refrigeration, A/C, washer/dryer), I don't think minor increases from a larger TV and such will match the significant difference of reducing the initial consumption by 1/4.
I don't understand your concluding points.
Assume two power supplies with identical efficiency measures (say, 95+). One is intended for a maximum output of 600 Watts, the other for a maximum output of 1200 Watts. I'm drawing 500 Watts. Shouldn't they have nearly identical amounts of total heat output and efficiency? I'm not sure about the "die quicker" part as well, but that's a separate piece.
Now assume I have a fixed budget, and can get one of 2 PSUs that fit my budget: Option 1 is a 1200 Watt unit that's below the 75+ rating, and Option 2 is a 600 Watt unit with a 95+ rating. From my understanding, as long as I'm drawing under that 600 Watts, the lower wattage PSU should be more efficient. That's the whole point of the rating. Are you saying that simply because it has more overhead, the higher wattage PSU will be significantly more efficient for some reason at lower outputs?
You... don't watch any TV shows, do you.
And what about product placement in the show itself? Watching your favorite characters drinking Brand drinks while using Brand computer, and wearing Brand clothing, while discussing how much they like Brand OtherProducts. In the background there's a couple billboards and posters that they can digitally replace ads on so even if you watch re-runs 10 years later there's current ad campaigns in it. That's spliced in. Good luck getting your automatic filter to pull that out.
As much as I enjoy a cheap shot at Fox News, it's more likely that Moderate Republicans haven't had a candidate they really like in years, so they need to evaluate all of them and switch between candidates constantly to find someone vaguely close to what they want.
...maybe we'll see more of that petrified wood from Antarctica.
You know, from when it wasn't snow and ice? (Yet somehow the world didn't end?)
The world doesn't need to end for it to be the end of the world.
Bee Keepers don't need to regulate temperature in any way. The bees do that for themselves (in the wild as well as in keeper's hives). They do need enough honey to make it through the winter, though.
Your lack of understanding comes from a flawed premise. Common Core is not a Federal thing. It is being run by a coalition of states. They had educators create guidelines for what students should know at various grade levels. Educators (good ones, even) joined in on this effort (which contradicts your point) -- most teachers, since there's no recognition as you noted, genuinely care about teaching kids, and give a ton of their time freely in pursuit of that goal. This was just another place they could do that.
Common Core does not directly stipulate curriculum or implementation. The vast majority of problems with "Common Core" are not with the Common Core itself, but the poor implementation of Common Core guidelines by For-Profit companies like Pearson, or how those guidelines were adopted by state legislatures (which generally consisted of "We'll buy this company's books and curricula and tests, and then have every school use them and if students don't do well we punish the teachers").
Steal has a definition. Specifically "the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently." Downloading without permission is not stealing, as you have no intention of depriving the owner of the use or benefit of the property. It is a copyright violation. That's why it's charged under the DMCA.
He probably didn't deny it, he most likely is refusing to testify at all, which is not quite the same.
In any case, why should a company be prohibited from giving you stuff for free?
Because it isn't free. At best, it's an included service that I'm paying for in some fashion, but I didn't necessarily ask to receive.
The dirt road is on the wrong end there. I wanted a nice paved road from my house to the highway. This company agreed to provide an unlimited use nice paved road that reached the highway for a reasonable fee that I paid. Since I didn't use it terribly often for years, I didn't notice that the off-ramp was actually metered and it was not an unlimited access route.
However, I started ordering goods from Amazon. Amazon started sending trucks with goods I had ordered. They got past the highway and then couldn't always reach my my nice paved road. The company I paid for unlimited nice paved road usage was not providing the service for which I had contracted. Rather than admit that they should not have offered a service which they could not provide, they went to Amazon and said "Hey, if you're going to send so many trucks down this road, can you pay for improvements to it?"
That wasn't Amazon's job, though. They shouldn't have to pay anything for that. I should. I'm the one that requested the contents of those trucks come this way. The road company should have come to me and admitted that they lied about being able to provide unlimited access at the advertised capacity and cost. They didn't, because they knew people would be upset with that breach of contract, particularly when it was revealed that this road company had repeatedly posted record profit instead of steadily investing in the full measure of necessary improvements to meet the demands I was making upon the roadway.
When ISPs were services that worked over telephone lines, they were information services. These days, they are clearly telecommunication services, or that physical portion of their business model should be split off to be such.
Right -- the problem here is we have private companies that have a mandate for Universal Coverage, and receive tax-money to provide that Coverage, but then fail to live up to the mandate and instead cherry-pick easy spots to provide coverage while making record profits by pocketing the difference. Further, when they are called on this, they resist any attempt to rescind that monopoly and recover that tax money to put it towards actually filling in those gaps (i.e. a public utility) and providing the agreed upon coverage, and the state (likely in collusion with said companies) refuses to actually prosecute them for contract violations (so the existing legal remedies are not, in fact, working at all).
For example: New Jersey and NJ Bell (now NJ Verizon) - commitment to 100% broadband coverage (which specifically defines broadband as 45Mbps) by 2010, took the money, failed to even come close to compliance, posted hefty profit (so obviously not putting that money into infrastructure improvements to fulfill said contract), and a few years after the contract end-date got the goal post moved to allow 4G coverage and significantly slower capacity lines to count instead of being required to either pay back the monies taken or to fulfill the original deal.
Knowing networking doesn't necessarily inherently cloud one's judgment, but it could be a contributing factor to having clouded judgment regarding certain products unless you intentionally account for it. Say someone asks me for a recommendation on what sort of product to get -- here, being technically knowledgeable can easily cloud my judgment unless I consider the user's end-needs as well. I know how to circumvent the flaws in a more complicated system and thus might minimize those flaws compared to flaws in a simpler system that cannot be mitigated, and I also tend to desire access the benefits such complexity allows and would chafe at the lack of such things in the simpler system. However, someone without my knowledge will flounder on the more complex system due to those flaws I minimize, and will not even be aware of the flaws with the simpler system because they have no need for that functionality. The right choice for me is not the right choice for everyone.
For example, I dislike Apple products because I am knowledgeable and like using my products in certain ways that are antithetical to Apple's standard practices (I also often have aesthetics issues with many of their design choices, but that's usually separate). However, I'm also aware that for people that just want the device to work with minimal configuration, that use a more limited subset of the functionality available, and that are happy to stay inside the walled garden, Apple products can be comparatively ideal (e.g. my parents).
Science? That ain't in the Bible. Must be a terrorist thing.
Yes, as long as they aren't causing a direct disturbance in the store or harassing other customers, I would. I might also make sure to get good pictures of them with the security system, and depending on how serious I thought they were (people talk about crazy stuff all the time when in stores that they don't actually follow through on), I might report it to the police and/or advise local synagogues that if they are victims of vandalism I might have relevant evidence for them.