Kids and their toys. When I was in high school some local delinquents discovered that they could scuff their feet on a carpet to build up a static charge, touch the keyboard lock and zap the motherboard. No fancy USB killer stick needed. Myself and a few volunteers spent a weekend opening the machines up, identifying which could be saved, and disconnecting the keyboard locks. And the computer room got a humidifier.
A surface is always two dimensional, even if it's a manifold embedded in a higher dimensional space (which any surface is in the real world, plane or curved).
What's with the personal attacks? You don't know anything about how I make choices.
I absolutely do choose airlines that offer a more leg room, comfortable seats, and pleasant customer service, because those things matter to me. I don't choose them for whether or not they show ads on their entertainment systems, because I can easily skip that.
I also support the people paying $10,000+ to shuffle onto the plane first and sit in a slightly bigger seat, because it subsidizes my $500 ticket. I'm quite happy to skip the $9500 charge for business class in favour of $50 to fly a better airline. The more stuff they charge for that I don't care about (but others do), the better.
You're not enslaved. Nobody is forcing you to use social media, or to give anybody any private data. You ARE the target of a variety of very carefully researched and optimized psychological techniques designed to make you desire things. That predates any social media, big data, etc., but those developments have made it much more effective.
A little of bit of research into advertising psychology is... chilling.
International flights used to be heavily regulated because they involved travelling through other countries' airspace. Those flights subsidized domestic flights to some extent. Deregulation of international flights, development of high efficiency engines and certification of twin engine planes to fly overseas has made air transport a lot cheaper.
The reason we're getting nickel and dimed is because competition in the airline business is cutthroat, and base ticket price is the overwhelming differentiating factor.
That is how capitalism works. If there's one thing it's good at, capitalism is good at optimizing production. At all costs.
Lots of things have gotten cheaper. Air transport in particular is much cheaper than it used to be. That's one of the reasons airlines are doing their best to nickel and dime their passengers to death: they used to make lots of money of highly regulated international flights. International deregulation allowed much more competition.
This is an excellent idea. More revenue streams for airlines mean cheaper bare bones tickets for those of us who can plan ahead well enough to bring a book or load a movie onto our own tablet.
That depends on whether people who are heavily in debt are more or less likely to have children.
If more likely, evolution will select for those who are susceptible to psychological attacks... sorry, targeted advertising. If less likely, it will select those who are resistant, and such things will stop being economically viable.
Of course, runaway consumption will probably kill us all first.
Could do. That would probably be a solution a libertarian would propose. That would put the responsibility for validating new aircraft safety on each individual. Or you could just wait for enough to crash. Since airplanes crash so infrequently, the result probably wouldn't be much better than superstition.
Especially for complex, high stakes things like new aircraft safety, regulation works very well. The FAA has lost it's international reputation learning that cutting corners isn't worth it. Boeing has also done so.
I do think we'd be better off if we eliminated the corporate shield, and balanced it with sane civil courts that can tell the difference between "we did everything we could a shit sometimes still happens" and "we knowingly cut corners and just hoped shit didn't happen."
No, they're talking about a constellation of cube sats that make some recognizable image (like the Pepsi logo maybe). Presumably you'd use something shiny, rather than LEDs, but that's not the problem.
Any two initially co-orbiting objects will be in slightly different orbits, and so will be drawn apart (possibly after being initially pushed together). To make a logo recognizable from the ground, you'd have to have your satellites at significant distances from each other. The ones spread over the N-S direction, would actually be in orbits with different inclinations. In order to maintain formation, they'd have to more or less continuously thrust. The limiting factor would be the amount of on-board propellant.
You could get around this problem by having one big satellite, but it would have to be *really* big in order to show any kind of structure from the ground.
That agency, the FAA, delegated some of its regulatory oversight tasks to Boeing. The GP's comment is insightful: it was considered critical to have independent oversight, so a government agency was set up. That agency decided to compromise on its oversight responsibility in favour of a small degree of self-regulation, and disasters occurred.
Companies can (and do) set up advisory boards, but those are advisory only. Real regulation must be imposed by an independent body with legal power to do so.
I don't think they CAN do it. At least not for any length of time. A constellation of satellites big enough to make some recognizable 2D pattern from the ground would be on decently different orbits. The satellites would have to maneuver constantly to maintain formation. So you could put one of these up, but it wouldn't stay there long.
It's not a waste of time, nor fraudulent. There is a bit of that of course, but you have to realize that a single study is not meant to be "right." Lots of scientists don't get that either. An individual study is meant to test something within certain limits. For the vast majority of studies, those limits are set wide (making them narrow costs a lot of money) and are designed to indicate whether a particular direction is promising or not. If so, you're supposed to follow up with a bigger, better study. If it continues to be promising, you eventually get to the point where you can fairly confidently say it's real.
In medicine, the process is somewhat formalized. You start with "preclinical" studies which are the single-grad student using ten mice variety. If it looks good you might try to replicate it yourself (if you're smart). Then you do a phase I trial in humans: usually a very small number, mostly for safety, but you're also looking to see an indication that the drug might work in people. Then phase II, which is bigger, but still not conclusive. Phase III is the big "does this actually work" trial, and for approval the FDA often requires more than one. Then, when the drug is approved, a phase IV study looks at how the drug works in actual use.
The majority of "could not be replicated" studies in pharma are drug companies bitching that they couldn't replicate the preclinical stuff, which is entirely unsurprising.
The *problem* is that so many people, including scientists, take a scientific paper, which is meant as "hey guys, we tried this thing and got this interesting result, maybe you could look too?" and treat it as Truth with a capital T.
Nope. Academia is set up to produce *lots* of competent scientists, mostly because grad students and postdocs are cheap, highly skilled labor. About 1% of those get a faculty job somewhere. Some others marry someone with a good enough job that they can entertain their academic habit as a research associate or equivalent. Most of the rest head off to industry, often doing things that are tangentially, or not at all related to their training. But quite a few try to become science popularizers, writing blogs, making YouTube videos, etc. Hire some of them as your science journalists.
"Space is the only place where [effectively] endless growth is possible. "
It's not though, assuming you mean exponential growth, which almost everyone does. People throw out the term "exponentially" without the slightest idea what it implies.
The judge's decision, the actual official, legal, record, is linked in the article. You're drawing your conclusions (and arguing them) from a single sentence in a news article about the case? Really?
Go read the ruling. See any references to one earbud or two? Nope. Not a single one. Nothing about ability to hear, playing music or not playing music, either.
OMG, I'm hungry! I could go for a nice juicy quarter pounder with cheese! And I bet the car is thirsty too, you should put in some high performance Shell V-Power gasoline, only the best! Oh, and you need new drapes right? Oh yeah, turn here.
A paper map doesn't replace GPS. Nor is GPS required to use Google Maps. Electronic maps got popular way before most people had smartphones that would run them. That happened because paper maps suck, unless you're in a situation where one of their few advantages really shines. I say that as a trained celestial navigator with a (paper) chart collection.
Slashdot Mirror
Kids and their toys. When I was in high school some local delinquents discovered that they could scuff their feet on a carpet to build up a static charge, touch the keyboard lock and zap the motherboard. No fancy USB killer stick needed. Myself and a few volunteers spent a weekend opening the machines up, identifying which could be saved, and disconnecting the keyboard locks. And the computer room got a humidifier.
A surface is always two dimensional, even if it's a manifold embedded in a higher dimensional space (which any surface is in the real world, plane or curved).
What's with the personal attacks? You don't know anything about how I make choices.
I absolutely do choose airlines that offer a more leg room, comfortable seats, and pleasant customer service, because those things matter to me. I don't choose them for whether or not they show ads on their entertainment systems, because I can easily skip that.
I also support the people paying $10,000+ to shuffle onto the plane first and sit in a slightly bigger seat, because it subsidizes my $500 ticket. I'm quite happy to skip the $9500 charge for business class in favour of $50 to fly a better airline. The more stuff they charge for that I don't care about (but others do), the better.
You're not enslaved. Nobody is forcing you to use social media, or to give anybody any private data. You ARE the target of a variety of very carefully researched and optimized psychological techniques designed to make you desire things. That predates any social media, big data, etc., but those developments have made it much more effective.
A little of bit of research into advertising psychology is... chilling.
Yes. They did. You can look up the numbers. Here's a good place to start, for the US market: http://darinlee.net/pdfs/airli...
International flights used to be heavily regulated because they involved travelling through other countries' airspace. Those flights subsidized domestic flights to some extent. Deregulation of international flights, development of high efficiency engines and certification of twin engine planes to fly overseas has made air transport a lot cheaper.
The reason we're getting nickel and dimed is because competition in the airline business is cutthroat, and base ticket price is the overwhelming differentiating factor.
That is how capitalism works. If there's one thing it's good at, capitalism is good at optimizing production. At all costs.
Lots of things have gotten cheaper. Air transport in particular is much cheaper than it used to be. That's one of the reasons airlines are doing their best to nickel and dime their passengers to death: they used to make lots of money of highly regulated international flights. International deregulation allowed much more competition.
This is an excellent idea. More revenue streams for airlines mean cheaper bare bones tickets for those of us who can plan ahead well enough to bring a book or load a movie onto our own tablet.
That depends on whether people who are heavily in debt are more or less likely to have children.
If more likely, evolution will select for those who are susceptible to psychological attacks... sorry, targeted advertising. If less likely, it will select those who are resistant, and such things will stop being economically viable.
Of course, runaway consumption will probably kill us all first.
That's a good suggestion. Problem is, relativistic travel within the Way distorts it. On the bright side, it also seals any gates the Jarts opened.
Could do. That would probably be a solution a libertarian would propose. That would put the responsibility for validating new aircraft safety on each individual. Or you could just wait for enough to crash. Since airplanes crash so infrequently, the result probably wouldn't be much better than superstition.
Especially for complex, high stakes things like new aircraft safety, regulation works very well. The FAA has lost it's international reputation learning that cutting corners isn't worth it. Boeing has also done so.
I do think we'd be better off if we eliminated the corporate shield, and balanced it with sane civil courts that can tell the difference between "we did everything we could a shit sometimes still happens" and "we knowingly cut corners and just hoped shit didn't happen."
I love the juxtaposition of those two applications.
No, they're talking about a constellation of cube sats that make some recognizable image (like the Pepsi logo maybe). Presumably you'd use something shiny, rather than LEDs, but that's not the problem.
Any two initially co-orbiting objects will be in slightly different orbits, and so will be drawn apart (possibly after being initially pushed together). To make a logo recognizable from the ground, you'd have to have your satellites at significant distances from each other. The ones spread over the N-S direction, would actually be in orbits with different inclinations. In order to maintain formation, they'd have to more or less continuously thrust. The limiting factor would be the amount of on-board propellant.
You could get around this problem by having one big satellite, but it would have to be *really* big in order to show any kind of structure from the ground.
That agency, the FAA, delegated some of its regulatory oversight tasks to Boeing. The GP's comment is insightful: it was considered critical to have independent oversight, so a government agency was set up. That agency decided to compromise on its oversight responsibility in favour of a small degree of self-regulation, and disasters occurred.
Companies can (and do) set up advisory boards, but those are advisory only. Real regulation must be imposed by an independent body with legal power to do so.
I don't think they CAN do it. At least not for any length of time. A constellation of satellites big enough to make some recognizable 2D pattern from the ground would be on decently different orbits. The satellites would have to maneuver constantly to maintain formation. So you could put one of these up, but it wouldn't stay there long.
It's not a waste of time, nor fraudulent. There is a bit of that of course, but you have to realize that a single study is not meant to be "right." Lots of scientists don't get that either. An individual study is meant to test something within certain limits. For the vast majority of studies, those limits are set wide (making them narrow costs a lot of money) and are designed to indicate whether a particular direction is promising or not. If so, you're supposed to follow up with a bigger, better study. If it continues to be promising, you eventually get to the point where you can fairly confidently say it's real.
In medicine, the process is somewhat formalized. You start with "preclinical" studies which are the single-grad student using ten mice variety. If it looks good you might try to replicate it yourself (if you're smart). Then you do a phase I trial in humans: usually a very small number, mostly for safety, but you're also looking to see an indication that the drug might work in people. Then phase II, which is bigger, but still not conclusive. Phase III is the big "does this actually work" trial, and for approval the FDA often requires more than one. Then, when the drug is approved, a phase IV study looks at how the drug works in actual use.
The majority of "could not be replicated" studies in pharma are drug companies bitching that they couldn't replicate the preclinical stuff, which is entirely unsurprising.
The *problem* is that so many people, including scientists, take a scientific paper, which is meant as "hey guys, we tried this thing and got this interesting result, maybe you could look too?" and treat it as Truth with a capital T.
Nope. Academia is set up to produce *lots* of competent scientists, mostly because grad students and postdocs are cheap, highly skilled labor. About 1% of those get a faculty job somewhere. Some others marry someone with a good enough job that they can entertain their academic habit as a research associate or equivalent. Most of the rest head off to industry, often doing things that are tangentially, or not at all related to their training. But quite a few try to become science popularizers, writing blogs, making YouTube videos, etc. Hire some of them as your science journalists.
Cool. In that case, effectively endless growth is possible pretty much anywhere. Space isn't special.
"Space is the only place where [effectively] endless growth is possible. "
It's not though, assuming you mean exponential growth, which almost everyone does. People throw out the term "exponentially" without the slightest idea what it implies.
Sometimes Slashdot....
The judge's decision, the actual official, legal, record, is linked in the article. You're drawing your conclusions (and arguing them) from a single sentence in a news article about the case? Really?
Go read the ruling. See any references to one earbud or two? Nope. Not a single one. Nothing about ability to hear, playing music or not playing music, either.
The judge's decision is linked in the summary.
It's been a while since we had a both-on-the-front-page dupe!
I'm lovin' it....
OMG, I'm hungry! I could go for a nice juicy quarter pounder with cheese! And I bet the car is thirsty too, you should put in some high performance Shell V-Power gasoline, only the best! Oh, and you need new drapes right? Oh yeah, turn here.
A paper map doesn't replace GPS. Nor is GPS required to use Google Maps. Electronic maps got popular way before most people had smartphones that would run them. That happened because paper maps suck, unless you're in a situation where one of their few advantages really shines. I say that as a trained celestial navigator with a (paper) chart collection.
Sure, that's why locomotives are all pure diesel....
There are more reasons to go with a hybrid drive than just duty cycle and regenerative braking.
Sure they are. You can measure efficiency many different ways for fuels. Usable energy delivered / mass for example. Also, EROEI is an important one.