Increasing the frame rate will make it look like a home video?
Yes home video is typically 60 fps, and the increased frame rate makes it much smoother and fluid. You can see the effect of this on most modern 120/240Hz LCD TVs. If you turn on the motion correction features it will make any source look smooth and fluid, even film, giving the appearance as though it was shot using a 'handy cam'.
What on earth does my method of dress have to do with my level of intelligence? Why does the manner in which I speak imply something about my character? I'm educated, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start dressing like a hipster douche in a GQ ad, and certainly not to avoid being hassled by police that have no business harassing me in the first place. I've been in those situations, too, although when I was growing up, it was the grunge look (flannel shirts, chain wallets) that was a target by our local police. Just wearing a Tool shirt was enough to get me harassed. Hell, just carrying (not even riding, just carrying) a skateboard was enough to get someone harassed by the cops in my town.
I had a 4.0 GPA, perfect attendance, and volunteered, but that all goes out the window because I'm wearing a t-shirt for a band the cops don't like? Come on.
I am for freedom, and if I choose to exercise my freedoms in a legal but socially unacceptable manner, I understand society cannot stop me but nor is society required to embrace my behavior.
Your behavior, dress, and speech means everything in the real world. For people we don't know, just met, or see passing by we judge them based on these characteristics. Welcome to the real world. You are free to dress like a thug, even if you have an 200 IQ and use your genius to clone puppies, but I am also free to look down on you because of how you dress. I don't know you any more than the similarly dressed thug who stole my TV, so why would you expect me to treat you any differently if you choose to dress and act in the same way?
Likewise, if you want to skateboard in public or someones private property it is unrealistic to believe you won't be judged or questioned by the public or property owners over your actions. Don't want to have problems, stay on your own property or go to the skate park where it is socially acceptable to skate. Don't have a skate park or want to skate in public, fine but accept that your actions will draw unwanted attention and assume the responsibility of exercising your freedom.
Ivy Bridge is smaller in area than Sandy Bridge. Assuming I got the right numbers from Wikipedia, 160 mm^2 vs 216. That's 74% the area for heat transfer.
Agreed, but it doesn't necessarily scale linearly when including spreading affects. Using the numbers you provided one would estimate a ~35% increase in temperature at a given power dissipation, when comparing the Ivy Bridge to the Sandy Bridge. Based on the linked article the increase was only ~30%, which seems reasonable if expecting slightly improved heater transfer performance due to spreading across an oversized heatsink.
With the limited amount of hardware information in this thread, one could probably conclude that most of the increase in temperature is due to a reduction in die size.
It's clear in the article, but the headline here sort of implies that the chips run hotter in general, whereas this test is only saying the new chips run hotter when overclocked. From what I can find, when run at the rated voltages/speeds, Ivy Bridge CPUs run at about the same temperature as last gen's CPUs.
Seems like that would make sense if at normal 'voltage/speed' the Ivy Bridge is using less power. Based on the the numbers in the link the Ivy Bridge has a higher overall thermal resistance, junction-to-air, of roughly 30% [=((100C-20C)/(80C-20C))*(231W/236W)]. Based on other reviews the Ivy Bridge processors uses less power at stock frequency/voltage so that may be offsetting much of the temperature rise due to an increase in package resistance and heatsink interface resistance, under normal conditions.
Power dissipation increases exponential with increases in frequency/voltage and it appears to rise faster with the Ivy Bridge processors. So as the power dissipation approaches or exceeds that of the Sandy Bridge processor much higher processor temperatures will be measured in the Ivy Bridge because of the higher thermal resistances.
I think this is a non-issue for the average consumer. However, overclockers would probably be better off with the Sandy Bridge hardware.
According to the Congressional Budget Office's prelminary report we just set a record in February for the largest ever monthly deficit at $229 Billion. The federal government spent $334 Billion dollars but only brought in $105 Billion in taxes. That works out to a deficit of about $7.9 Billion per day. It is almost comical think about a program with so much potential only needing $4 Billion to advance their work. I guess it would funny if it weren't real life.
I don't think anyone disputes the necessity of auto insurance or the laws requiring it.
Emphasis mine...I think any responsible person sees the value of auto insurance but that doesn't mean it needs to be required by law. I live in a state the does not require auto insurance. However, my state does require me to show financial responsibility if I am in an accident or someone is an accident while using my vehicle. I own three vehicle, and all three vehicles are insured because financially that makes the most sense for me. I made this decision on my own, I was not forced to buy anything by my state/government. It is simply a matter of personal responsibility.
Why doesn't the drone have a self-destruct functionality?
I mean... isn't this like the ultimate reason for that functionality? So that technology doesn't get into enemy hands? Just like spies having these suicide pills?
Oh well... seems like this one doesn't have any.
It is likely that self-destruct functionality depends on the technology that is employed in the drones. Most sensitive electronics can be zeroized in some fashion to protect cyrpto keys without loss of the hardware. In some cases destructive zeroization is required, but another poster mentioned accidental activation of self-destruct systems is a reality so it needs to be considered with care where either loss of life/injury or expensive hardware costs could occur.
In the case of an unmanned vehicle it seems like the self-destruct mechanisms become far more complex if the autonomous systems have to determine when to destroy the vehicle or specific hardware. Assuming that in this case the drone was no longer in contact with the Operator how does it know that it is enemy hands? How does one ensure that the vehicle never gets confused and self-destructs during normal operation or in a friendly hanger?
I am sure extensive trade studies and have been done on this specific topic, but I have never seen real world technical problems and solutions documented anywhere. Would be interested if anyone has links to any technical information.
"Admitting" that you know of this "weakness" is simply acknowledging what every materials science student already knows - there is no way to prevent fatigue failure of aluminum. Doesn't matter if it's a Boeing plane or an Airbus plane - every aluminum plane has this weakness.
Your post comes across as if there is something inherently wrong with using aluminum. Just because aluminum doesn't have a fatigue limit doesn't imply there is a design problem. The fatigue properties are just one of many design aspects that have to be balanced, and there are number of ways to mitigate fatigue risks. Also, the fatigue curve on wiki is generic and not not necessarily representative of a aircraft grade Aluminum Alloy such as 7075. Many high performance aluminum alloys have a sharp knee between 10E6 and 10E8 cycles. Finally, admitting they know the weakness of aluminum is hardly all encompassing as there are many more steps required to determine when fatigue failures will occur, it is a lot more complicated than matching number of cycles to a given stress.
As this obviously isn't obvious to everyone, I'll explain:
Say the minimum cost of living for a certain time is 100, and citizen A earns 150, then person a has 20 left.
If we then introduce citizen B, who earns 200, then that person has 100 percent left.
If we tax them equally, say 20%, citizen A pays 30 and citizen B pays 40.
As this might sound fair, it really isn't. Why?
Because citizen A:s "discretionary income", as it is called, has shrunk by 60% and citizen B:s with only 40%.
So citizen A:s life will be far more more affected by the "fair" taxation than citizen B:s.
This argument is fundamentally flawed. It only holds true if both citizen A and B agree that the minimum cost of living is 100. However, if Citizen B desires for themselves a minimum cost of living no less than 160, and that is what drives them to obtain an income of 200, then the progressive taxation will deprive them of their personal desires. As a society I believe we are far more 'collective' than we will ever admit.
The used car market around here has almost negligible cost advantages vs new, and carries the obvious maintenance risks.
It depends on the buyer....but a used car is generally cheaper than a new car in every aspect. Purchase price is lower, registration is less, and insurance will be less. If you can do basic maintenance yourself, like a changing an alternate, you can take care of most of the problems you will have. As long as you don't get a "lemon", in the long run you will save enough to cover a few larger problems that require a mechanic.
But if you are willing to get your hands dirty than you can still save money even if extra maintenance is required. I owned an '83 Toyota for 5 years. Bought it for $2,000 and dropped maybe $5,000 in tools and parts for maintenance and fun (a lot of things broke because I beat on the car). I re-built the front brakes, changed all the brake lines, replaced the alternator (twice), brake master cylinder, water pump, oil pump, engine hoses, dicked up the engine timing, new timing chain & sprockets, engine gaskets (including head gasket), new rear suspension arms, springs, suspension bushings, and repainted the oil pan and timing cover myself. There are dozens of other things but nevertheless $7,000 across 5 years is still less than half of what my wife's brand new Honda cost (at purchase). The funny thing is before I had bought that car I had never even changed my own oil before and didn't even own a tool box, so if I can do all that anyone can given they are willing to invest some of their time.
It was only $23 dollars/year to register and only needed liability insurance because it wasn't worth insuring the car. A bit of an extreme case maybe... someone could find something in between brand new and 30 years old that would save money in the long run. Especially if you don't have to take out a loan because $200-300/mo in car payments equals a lot of parts and/or labor.
I would argue the exact opposite. Taxes are the only way to fairly manipulate behavior.
So is that why the rich are taxed at higher rate....to dissuade people from becoming wealthy? Has that become socially undesirable?
Should it be in the overall interest of everyone to reduce our rate of fuel consumption, a tax is the only way to go. What are the alternatives, make gas guzzling vehicles illegal? Or how about requiring automakers make specific types of cars.
Why are the only alternatives either to ban behavior you don't agree with or that they must pay more for the same service? Maybe people have different priorities and needs than you. Maybe it is best to allow people to find their own path, rather than be told like children what is best for themselves.
A tax on gas will change national behaviour without placing limits on what we can do. Want to drive a Hummer? - just be ready to pay for it when you fill up. The tax acts as an incentive for people to minimize fuel consumption. This is better then the alternative as people retain the freedom to do drive and purchase whatever vehicle they want.
You do understand that it is already more expensive to buy a Hummer? It has a larger sticker price, it is subject to a federal gas guzzle tax during purchase, and because it has poor mileage it costs more per mile. Let us not forget that registration and insurance are also probably more expensive as well. So it is ALREADY more expensive to own a hummer. The people who drive them are the people who are willing to pay more. The problem is that everyone else wont be happy until they are off the road, increased fuel taxes are just an excuse to justify one point of view.
Yes, but when those "fashions" have a negative impact on their neighbours then it is time to apply a tax. The true cost of a product is not measured with just dollar signs. For example, the environmental repercussions of consuming a product are almost never part of the original purchase price. If the "invisible hand" is going to work correctly, monetary values for those repercussions must be artificially added in the form of a tax.
By your line of reasoning I think it is the people who buy new cars that are really environmentally irresponsible. There are plenty of used cars that would meet most peoples needs. Why buy a brand new car that requires so many resources to not only build but also develop. I mean think about the thousands of people that commute to work everyday to develop that vehicle. Keeping the lights and computers on for years, moving and assembling the raw materials and tooling, shipping the assembled vehicle across the country/globe. Just so you can get that new car smell, how fucking selfish. I think there should be a significant "new car tax" to dissuade this behavior, otherwise we may be forced to ban purchasing of new vehicles.
Doesn't the cinema version use polarisers on the projectors? Not easy to do with a TV.
It can be done on an LCD TV, as there are commercially available pattern retarders that can be bonded on to an LCD that will alternatively circularly polarize each row of pixels. However, the process is expensive and it cuts the 3D vertical resolution in half. Nevertheless, the result is passive 3D with an OK viewing envelop.
I'm very conservative. Despite that, I'll agree taxes probably need to go up at this point - BUT... with a couple of caveats:
I don't agree, raising taxes will just exacerbate the problem. Not because it wouldn't balance the budget, but because it just 'enables' more of the same behavior. Federal spending is out of control because the federal government is out of control. The federal government has taken on far more than was ever intended when the country was established.
The federal government as essentially usurped power that should have been reserved to the states. Our financial problems are fundamentally due to size of government (spending) and not insufficient revenue (taxation). As a conservative I understand the need for taxation but it is the size and number of services that I take issue with and therefore don't want to pay the additional taxes required to support those programs.
Making a local business charge tax while their competitors on the other side of the country (or planet) don't charge tax is damaging to the local economy.
Damaging to the local retail economy maybe, but I am guessing businesses that offer a local service are doing OK. Also, if partial taxation is damaging to the economy why is the answer more taxation, why not consider dropping the required taxation from local stores so they can compete fairly?
Are you talking at a federal level or a state level, because as of 2010 just over 60% of the federal budget is comprised of Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Unemployment/Welfare and interest on the debt. The rest covers defense and all the other shit most people think of when they think of federal programs (education, transportation, EPA, etc).
Government services have become a lot more expensive, SPECIFICALLY the welfare services which interestingly enough are usually required by those who have lesser incomes and therefore pay little or nothing in taxes. Personally, I would be happy with just paying to the state what I pay to the federal government and vice verse so I might actually see the benefit from my taxes./P
You need competency to do well no matter how you play, but you don't need to be skilled at 'frags' to win a round as support roles are equally rewarding. The first match in which I received an MVP ribbon I was 0:4 (K:D), not because I can't kill anyone but because I never fired my weapon. In fact half-way through the round I didn't even bother to draw my weapon, I just kept the 'defibs' out since I was reviving someone every couple of seconds.
have no expectation of privacy and can be tracked at will by the police, do police therefore have no expectation of privacy and can be tracked at will by citizens? Sounds like a great argument.
In addition to police vehicles, it would be nice to know if I can stick them on politician's vehicles, judge's vehicles, and my neighbor's vehicle. I think if you really wanted to make waves you could argue that no one has any expectation of privacy in the air, so why not leave one of these devices in/on a commercial airplane. The possibilities are endless...I bet challenges would arise where people try to get a device on the most obscure vehicles possible (presidential limo anyone?), and then have them trackable via publicly accessible websites.
I think you missing the point of transaction tax. In this particular case, the goal is not so much to create new source of revenue, but to make most dangerous (for the world economy as a whole point of view) trading practices unaffordable. High Frequency Trading makes tons of money out of thin air. No one gets any better except select few trading houses which have enough muscle to participate in this. The transaction tax may have many consequences, but at the very least it will make stock market little bit less rigged.
The GP specifically stated; You have to ask what is the purpose of taxes to begin with. If you think the propose of a tax is to change behavior then maybe he missed the point. But for those who see raising taxes as the means by which government services are supported then I don't think it is the GP who is missing the point.
If it is as necessary as you stated to eliminate HFT, then the government should have a legitimate means by which to stop the transactions. Since they don't have that authority the government just resorts to taxation which will give them either control and/or increased revenues (at end of the day they are one in the same). I believe Charlie Sheen would call this 'winning'.
...I suggest people think about this sort of thing. Not all businesses are scams, but the people raking in millions of dollars a year aren't earning it. Their inheriting it, winning it or stealing it, and they deserve to be taxed at a higher rate.
Who are you to judge whether someone has earned their wealth or not? If it is ill-gotten gains then there should be legal recourse, if not then mind your fucking business (pun intended).
Also how the fuck do you figure that inheritance isn't earned? Do you understand what inheritance is? It represents the estate of someone who is deceased? For the majority of people their estate represents a LIFE TIME of work. Their will or testament indicates who they want their estate to pass to when (NOT IF) they die, it represents their last wishes after spending the better part of their life working. You want to shit all over their last wishes by giving most of their estate to the government (THE ACTUAL ENTITY THAT HASN'T FUCKING EARNED IT) and in that process nullify all their hard work. I suggest YOU think about this sort of thing.
I have been a member for about 6 years. My price has been going up slowly over that time for various reasons, but the recent jump due to streaming forced me to re-evaluate my monthly bill. To my surprise if I dropped streaming and blu-ray my monthly bill would almost be the same as when I first started (back before streaming or blu-ray).
That lead me to believe that their pricing has just been changed to reflect the cost of streaming, they took the initial approach of giving it away for free and now feel they have enough of a user base to start building a business. I can understand they are business and need to charge for the service they provide. So I reduced by DVD plan and kept the streaming plan so there was no monthly impact for me.
However, moving to two independent services is entirely different. As the email from the CEO stated by doing this they are breaking the integration between the DVD and Streaming services. As you stated it is now necessarily to manage both separately, meaning duplicated effort on two different websites. Not only does that waste the customers time it provides less incentive to use both systems. Integration is often what separates a good system from a great system, and that applies to many things we use in daily life and Netflix is no exception.
I can't believe that the Netflix team doesn't understand the value of integration, as much of their past work involved integrating both Steaming and DVD on the current website. I also know that the CEOs long term goal has always been online delivery (hence the name), so maybe this is that first step. But it sure doesn't feel like a step in the right direction, perhaps because the primary differentiator between Netflix and everyone else was the option for both streaming AND physical media in one service.
Really? I am not going to defend any particular political party, but wtf do you think more federal taxes is the solution? Why should I give a shit about educational problems in another state? Better yet, why should I have to PAY for education in another state? Why can't I just pay taxes to the state/city that I live in? How about the liberty to put my money where my mouth is, instead of someone just taking my money and then telling me to shut my mouth?
Why can't the people in South Dakota figure this out, why must it be a federal issue?
Doing too much for people is also bad, but we are soooo far away from that in the US that we can afford to go full tilt toward The Welfare State without risking going over the ledge of left-wing extremism and taking TOO much care of people. We've lost our center in the US. Conservatives see us drifting farther to the left, when in reality we are pegged to the right and the momentum is still in that direction.
Really? Did you miss last week? You know where the US signed up for the single largest increase of the debt limit in it's history, and the debt surpassed the GDP, and our credit rating was derated for the first in US history.
So you think all that happened because we are 'pegged slightly to the right', you think that is what being slightly conservative looks like?
That is an interesting take, and it is also interesting that everyone responding to your comment was quick to address the efficacy of government spending. But have you ever stopped to ask yourself what is the real role of government, specifically the role of the federal government? I think for some people when they look at waste in government spending it goes beyond efficacy and is the fact that the overreaching federal government under takes projects it should have no authority over.
except that the change is not quick. If suddenly the price of gas jumps it may be months or years before a person can afford to buy a better car. Not to mention the time it takes for the car companies to tool up to meet demand for fuel efficient cars. Buying a car is not like buying laundry detergent. You just can't switch over to a new car rapidly enough to adapt to rapid changes in the price of fuel.
Yet another situation where the failures of market economics is laid bare. This is a situation where only government has the ability to do the correct thing for the public good.
Well personal responsibility is hard. Performing a lot of research on different vehicles and evaluating the pro's and con's of different options and performance characteristics is a lot of work. It is a lot easier just to go to the dealership and buy whatever they say you will look good in. So I can see how someone might be surprised when the price of gas suddenly rises after they have purchased a gas guzzling vehicle, because that hasn’t ever really happened before.
Thank goodness there are people like you and the government to help me make decision I would otherwise have to make for myself.
I'm sorry, did BF3 have superbowl commercials with Kobe "Black Mamba" Bryant and other famous mofo's playing out the game's action IRL?
No?
Then CoD kicked their ever-lovin' asses in the drumbeat department, and any tiny thing they do from now on will have the impact of a full-out marketing blitz.
Yea I would definitely buy a FPS just because a basketball player was in the commercial, with no real gameplay, that aired during a football game. Consumerism at it's best I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
Increasing the frame rate will make it look like a home video?
Yes home video is typically 60 fps, and the increased frame rate makes it much smoother and fluid. You can see the effect of this on most modern 120/240Hz LCD TVs. If you turn on the motion correction features it will make any source look smooth and fluid, even film, giving the appearance as though it was shot using a 'handy cam'.
What on earth does my method of dress have to do with my level of intelligence? Why does the manner in which I speak imply something about my character? I'm educated, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start dressing like a hipster douche in a GQ ad, and certainly not to avoid being hassled by police that have no business harassing me in the first place. I've been in those situations, too, although when I was growing up, it was the grunge look (flannel shirts, chain wallets) that was a target by our local police. Just wearing a Tool shirt was enough to get me harassed. Hell, just carrying (not even riding, just carrying) a skateboard was enough to get someone harassed by the cops in my town.
I had a 4.0 GPA, perfect attendance, and volunteered, but that all goes out the window because I'm wearing a t-shirt for a band the cops don't like? Come on.
I am for freedom, and if I choose to exercise my freedoms in a legal but socially unacceptable manner, I understand society cannot stop me but nor is society required to embrace my behavior.
Your behavior, dress, and speech means everything in the real world. For people we don't know, just met, or see passing by we judge them based on these characteristics. Welcome to the real world. You are free to dress like a thug, even if you have an 200 IQ and use your genius to clone puppies, but I am also free to look down on you because of how you dress. I don't know you any more than the similarly dressed thug who stole my TV, so why would you expect me to treat you any differently if you choose to dress and act in the same way?
Likewise, if you want to skateboard in public or someones private property it is unrealistic to believe you won't be judged or questioned by the public or property owners over your actions. Don't want to have problems, stay on your own property or go to the skate park where it is socially acceptable to skate. Don't have a skate park or want to skate in public, fine but accept that your actions will draw unwanted attention and assume the responsibility of exercising your freedom.
Ivy Bridge is smaller in area than Sandy Bridge. Assuming I got the right numbers from Wikipedia, 160 mm^2 vs 216. That's 74% the area for heat transfer.
Agreed, but it doesn't necessarily scale linearly when including spreading affects. Using the numbers you provided one would estimate a ~35% increase in temperature at a given power dissipation, when comparing the Ivy Bridge to the Sandy Bridge. Based on the linked article the increase was only ~30%, which seems reasonable if expecting slightly improved heater transfer performance due to spreading across an oversized heatsink.
With the limited amount of hardware information in this thread, one could probably conclude that most of the increase in temperature is due to a reduction in die size.
It's clear in the article, but the headline here sort of implies that the chips run hotter in general, whereas this test is only saying the new chips run hotter when overclocked. From what I can find, when run at the rated voltages/speeds, Ivy Bridge CPUs run at about the same temperature as last gen's CPUs.
Seems like that would make sense if at normal 'voltage/speed' the Ivy Bridge is using less power. Based on the the numbers in the link the Ivy Bridge has a higher overall thermal resistance, junction-to-air, of roughly 30% [=((100C-20C)/(80C-20C))*(231W/236W)]. Based on other reviews the Ivy Bridge processors uses less power at stock frequency/voltage so that may be offsetting much of the temperature rise due to an increase in package resistance and heatsink interface resistance, under normal conditions.
Power dissipation increases exponential with increases in frequency/voltage and it appears to rise faster with the Ivy Bridge processors. So as the power dissipation approaches or exceeds that of the Sandy Bridge processor much higher processor temperatures will be measured in the Ivy Bridge because of the higher thermal resistances.
I think this is a non-issue for the average consumer. However, overclockers would probably be better off with the Sandy Bridge hardware.
According to the Congressional Budget Office's prelminary report we just set a record in February for the largest ever monthly deficit at $229 Billion. The federal government spent $334 Billion dollars but only brought in $105 Billion in taxes. That works out to a deficit of about $7.9 Billion per day. It is almost comical think about a program with so much potential only needing $4 Billion to advance their work. I guess it would funny if it weren't real life.
I don't think anyone disputes the necessity of auto insurance or the laws requiring it.
Emphasis mine...I think any responsible person sees the value of auto insurance but that doesn't mean it needs to be required by law. I live in a state the does not require auto insurance. However, my state does require me to show financial responsibility if I am in an accident or someone is an accident while using my vehicle. I own three vehicle, and all three vehicles are insured because financially that makes the most sense for me. I made this decision on my own, I was not forced to buy anything by my state/government. It is simply a matter of personal responsibility.
Why doesn't the drone have a self-destruct functionality?
I mean... isn't this like the ultimate reason for that functionality? So that technology doesn't get into enemy hands? Just like spies having these suicide pills?
Oh well... seems like this one doesn't have any.
It is likely that self-destruct functionality depends on the technology that is employed in the drones. Most sensitive electronics can be zeroized in some fashion to protect cyrpto keys without loss of the hardware. In some cases destructive zeroization is required, but another poster mentioned accidental activation of self-destruct systems is a reality so it needs to be considered with care where either loss of life/injury or expensive hardware costs could occur.
In the case of an unmanned vehicle it seems like the self-destruct mechanisms become far more complex if the autonomous systems have to determine when to destroy the vehicle or specific hardware. Assuming that in this case the drone was no longer in contact with the Operator how does it know that it is enemy hands? How does one ensure that the vehicle never gets confused and self-destructs during normal operation or in a friendly hanger?
I am sure extensive trade studies and have been done on this specific topic, but I have never seen real world technical problems and solutions documented anywhere. Would be interested if anyone has links to any technical information.
"Admitting" that you know of this "weakness" is simply acknowledging what every materials science student already knows - there is no way to prevent fatigue failure of aluminum. Doesn't matter if it's a Boeing plane or an Airbus plane - every aluminum plane has this weakness.
Your post comes across as if there is something inherently wrong with using aluminum. Just because aluminum doesn't have a fatigue limit doesn't imply there is a design problem. The fatigue properties are just one of many design aspects that have to be balanced, and there are number of ways to mitigate fatigue risks. Also, the fatigue curve on wiki is generic and not not necessarily representative of a aircraft grade Aluminum Alloy such as 7075. Many high performance aluminum alloys have a sharp knee between 10E6 and 10E8 cycles. Finally, admitting they know the weakness of aluminum is hardly all encompassing as there are many more steps required to determine when fatigue failures will occur, it is a lot more complicated than matching number of cycles to a given stress.
As this obviously isn't obvious to everyone, I'll explain:
Say the minimum cost of living for a certain time is 100, and citizen A earns 150, then person a has 20 left. If we then introduce citizen B, who earns 200, then that person has 100 percent left. If we tax them equally, say 20%, citizen A pays 30 and citizen B pays 40.
As this might sound fair, it really isn't. Why? Because citizen A:s "discretionary income", as it is called, has shrunk by 60% and citizen B:s with only 40%. So citizen A:s life will be far more more affected by the "fair" taxation than citizen B:s.
This argument is fundamentally flawed. It only holds true if both citizen A and B agree that the minimum cost of living is 100. However, if Citizen B desires for themselves a minimum cost of living no less than 160, and that is what drives them to obtain an income of 200, then the progressive taxation will deprive them of their personal desires. As a society I believe we are far more 'collective' than we will ever admit.
The used car market around here has almost negligible cost advantages vs new, and carries the obvious maintenance risks.
It depends on the buyer....but a used car is generally cheaper than a new car in every aspect. Purchase price is lower, registration is less, and insurance will be less. If you can do basic maintenance yourself, like a changing an alternate, you can take care of most of the problems you will have. As long as you don't get a "lemon", in the long run you will save enough to cover a few larger problems that require a mechanic.
But if you are willing to get your hands dirty than you can still save money even if extra maintenance is required. I owned an '83 Toyota for 5 years. Bought it for $2,000 and dropped maybe $5,000 in tools and parts for maintenance and fun (a lot of things broke because I beat on the car). I re-built the front brakes, changed all the brake lines, replaced the alternator (twice), brake master cylinder, water pump, oil pump, engine hoses, dicked up the engine timing, new timing chain & sprockets, engine gaskets (including head gasket), new rear suspension arms, springs, suspension bushings, and repainted the oil pan and timing cover myself. There are dozens of other things but nevertheless $7,000 across 5 years is still less than half of what my wife's brand new Honda cost (at purchase). The funny thing is before I had bought that car I had never even changed my own oil before and didn't even own a tool box, so if I can do all that anyone can given they are willing to invest some of their time.
It was only $23 dollars/year to register and only needed liability insurance because it wasn't worth insuring the car. A bit of an extreme case maybe... someone could find something in between brand new and 30 years old that would save money in the long run. Especially if you don't have to take out a loan because $200-300/mo in car payments equals a lot of parts and/or labor.
I would argue the exact opposite. Taxes are the only way to fairly manipulate behavior.
So is that why the rich are taxed at higher rate....to dissuade people from becoming wealthy? Has that become socially undesirable?
Should it be in the overall interest of everyone to reduce our rate of fuel consumption, a tax is the only way to go. What are the alternatives, make gas guzzling vehicles illegal? Or how about requiring automakers make specific types of cars.
Why are the only alternatives either to ban behavior you don't agree with or that they must pay more for the same service? Maybe people have different priorities and needs than you. Maybe it is best to allow people to find their own path, rather than be told like children what is best for themselves.
A tax on gas will change national behaviour without placing limits on what we can do. Want to drive a Hummer? - just be ready to pay for it when you fill up. The tax acts as an incentive for people to minimize fuel consumption. This is better then the alternative as people retain the freedom to do drive and purchase whatever vehicle they want.
You do understand that it is already more expensive to buy a Hummer? It has a larger sticker price, it is subject to a federal gas guzzle tax during purchase, and because it has poor mileage it costs more per mile. Let us not forget that registration and insurance are also probably more expensive as well. So it is ALREADY more expensive to own a hummer. The people who drive them are the people who are willing to pay more. The problem is that everyone else wont be happy until they are off the road, increased fuel taxes are just an excuse to justify one point of view.
Yes, but when those "fashions" have a negative impact on their neighbours then it is time to apply a tax. The true cost of a product is not measured with just dollar signs. For example, the environmental repercussions of consuming a product are almost never part of the original purchase price. If the "invisible hand" is going to work correctly, monetary values for those repercussions must be artificially added in the form of a tax.
By your line of reasoning I think it is the people who buy new cars that are really environmentally irresponsible. There are plenty of used cars that would meet most peoples needs. Why buy a brand new car that requires so many resources to not only build but also develop. I mean think about the thousands of people that commute to work everyday to develop that vehicle. Keeping the lights and computers on for years, moving and assembling the raw materials and tooling, shipping the assembled vehicle across the country/globe. Just so you can get that new car smell, how fucking selfish. I think there should be a significant "new car tax" to dissuade this behavior, otherwise we may be forced to ban purchasing of new vehicles.
Doesn't the cinema version use polarisers on the projectors? Not easy to do with a TV.
It can be done on an LCD TV, as there are commercially available pattern retarders that can be bonded on to an LCD that will alternatively circularly polarize each row of pixels. However, the process is expensive and it cuts the 3D vertical resolution in half. Nevertheless, the result is passive 3D with an OK viewing envelop.
Google xpol for more information
I'm very conservative. Despite that, I'll agree taxes probably need to go up at this point - BUT... with a couple of caveats:
I don't agree, raising taxes will just exacerbate the problem. Not because it wouldn't balance the budget, but because it just 'enables' more of the same behavior. Federal spending is out of control because the federal government is out of control. The federal government has taken on far more than was ever intended when the country was established.
The federal government as essentially usurped power that should have been reserved to the states. Our financial problems are fundamentally due to size of government (spending) and not insufficient revenue (taxation). As a conservative I understand the need for taxation but it is the size and number of services that I take issue with and therefore don't want to pay the additional taxes required to support those programs.
Making a local business charge tax while their competitors on the other side of the country (or planet) don't charge tax is damaging to the local economy.
Damaging to the local retail economy maybe, but I am guessing businesses that offer a local service are doing OK. Also, if partial taxation is damaging to the economy why is the answer more taxation, why not consider dropping the required taxation from local stores so they can compete fairly?
Are you talking at a federal level or a state level, because as of 2010 just over 60% of the federal budget is comprised of Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Unemployment/Welfare and interest on the debt. The rest covers defense and all the other shit most people think of when they think of federal programs (education, transportation, EPA, etc).
Government services have become a lot more expensive, SPECIFICALLY the welfare services which interestingly enough are usually required by those who have lesser incomes and therefore pay little or nothing in taxes. Personally, I would be happy with just paying to the state what I pay to the federal government and vice verse so I might actually see the benefit from my taxes./P
You need competency to do well no matter how you play, but you don't need to be skilled at 'frags' to win a round as support roles are equally rewarding. The first match in which I received an MVP ribbon I was 0:4 (K:D), not because I can't kill anyone but because I never fired my weapon. In fact half-way through the round I didn't even bother to draw my weapon, I just kept the 'defibs' out since I was reviving someone every couple of seconds.
have no expectation of privacy and can be tracked at will by the police, do police therefore have no expectation of privacy and can be tracked at will by citizens? Sounds like a great argument.
In addition to police vehicles, it would be nice to know if I can stick them on politician's vehicles, judge's vehicles, and my neighbor's vehicle. I think if you really wanted to make waves you could argue that no one has any expectation of privacy in the air, so why not leave one of these devices in/on a commercial airplane. The possibilities are endless...I bet challenges would arise where people try to get a device on the most obscure vehicles possible (presidential limo anyone?), and then have them trackable via publicly accessible websites.
I think you missing the point of transaction tax. In this particular case, the goal is not so much to create new source of revenue, but to make most dangerous (for the world economy as a whole point of view) trading practices unaffordable. High Frequency Trading makes tons of money out of thin air. No one gets any better except select few trading houses which have enough muscle to participate in this. The transaction tax may have many consequences, but at the very least it will make stock market little bit less rigged.
The GP specifically stated; You have to ask what is the purpose of taxes to begin with. If you think the propose of a tax is to change behavior then maybe he missed the point. But for those who see raising taxes as the means by which government services are supported then I don't think it is the GP who is missing the point.
If it is as necessary as you stated to eliminate HFT, then the government should have a legitimate means by which to stop the transactions. Since they don't have that authority the government just resorts to taxation which will give them either control and/or increased revenues (at end of the day they are one in the same). I believe Charlie Sheen would call this 'winning'.
...I suggest people think about this sort of thing. Not all businesses are scams, but the people raking in millions of dollars a year aren't earning it. Their inheriting it, winning it or stealing it, and they deserve to be taxed at a higher rate.
Who are you to judge whether someone has earned their wealth or not? If it is ill-gotten gains then there should be legal recourse, if not then mind your fucking business (pun intended).
Also how the fuck do you figure that inheritance isn't earned? Do you understand what inheritance is? It represents the estate of someone who is deceased? For the majority of people their estate represents a LIFE TIME of work. Their will or testament indicates who they want their estate to pass to when (NOT IF) they die, it represents their last wishes after spending the better part of their life working. You want to shit all over their last wishes by giving most of their estate to the government (THE ACTUAL ENTITY THAT HASN'T FUCKING EARNED IT) and in that process nullify all their hard work. I suggest YOU think about this sort of thing.
I have been a member for about 6 years. My price has been going up slowly over that time for various reasons, but the recent jump due to streaming forced me to re-evaluate my monthly bill. To my surprise if I dropped streaming and blu-ray my monthly bill would almost be the same as when I first started (back before streaming or blu-ray).
That lead me to believe that their pricing has just been changed to reflect the cost of streaming, they took the initial approach of giving it away for free and now feel they have enough of a user base to start building a business. I can understand they are business and need to charge for the service they provide. So I reduced by DVD plan and kept the streaming plan so there was no monthly impact for me.
However, moving to two independent services is entirely different. As the email from the CEO stated by doing this they are breaking the integration between the DVD and Streaming services. As you stated it is now necessarily to manage both separately, meaning duplicated effort on two different websites. Not only does that waste the customers time it provides less incentive to use both systems. Integration is often what separates a good system from a great system, and that applies to many things we use in daily life and Netflix is no exception.
I can't believe that the Netflix team doesn't understand the value of integration, as much of their past work involved integrating both Steaming and DVD on the current website. I also know that the CEOs long term goal has always been online delivery (hence the name), so maybe this is that first step. But it sure doesn't feel like a step in the right direction, perhaps because the primary differentiator between Netflix and everyone else was the option for both streaming AND physical media in one service.
Really? I am not going to defend any particular political party, but wtf do you think more federal taxes is the solution? Why should I give a shit about educational problems in another state? Better yet, why should I have to PAY for education in another state? Why can't I just pay taxes to the state/city that I live in? How about the liberty to put my money where my mouth is, instead of someone just taking my money and then telling me to shut my mouth?
Why can't the people in South Dakota figure this out, why must it be a federal issue?
Doing too much for people is also bad, but we are soooo far away from that in the US that we can afford to go full tilt toward The Welfare State without risking going over the ledge of left-wing extremism and taking TOO much care of people. We've lost our center in the US. Conservatives see us drifting farther to the left, when in reality we are pegged to the right and the momentum is still in that direction.
Really? Did you miss last week? You know where the US signed up for the single largest increase of the debt limit in it's history, and the debt surpassed the GDP, and our credit rating was derated for the first in US history.
So you think all that happened because we are 'pegged slightly to the right', you think that is what being slightly conservative looks like?
That is an interesting take, and it is also interesting that everyone responding to your comment was quick to address the efficacy of government spending. But have you ever stopped to ask yourself what is the real role of government, specifically the role of the federal government? I think for some people when they look at waste in government spending it goes beyond efficacy and is the fact that the overreaching federal government under takes projects it should have no authority over.
except that the change is not quick. If suddenly the price of gas jumps it may be months or years before a person can afford to buy a better car. Not to mention the time it takes for the car companies to tool up to meet demand for fuel efficient cars. Buying a car is not like buying laundry detergent. You just can't switch over to a new car rapidly enough to adapt to rapid changes in the price of fuel.
Yet another situation where the failures of market economics is laid bare. This is a situation where only government has the ability to do the correct thing for the public good.
Well personal responsibility is hard. Performing a lot of research on different vehicles and evaluating the pro's and con's of different options and performance characteristics is a lot of work. It is a lot easier just to go to the dealership and buy whatever they say you will look good in. So I can see how someone might be surprised when the price of gas suddenly rises after they have purchased a gas guzzling vehicle, because that hasn’t ever really happened before.
Thank goodness there are people like you and the government to help me make decision I would otherwise have to make for myself.
I'm sorry, did BF3 have superbowl commercials with Kobe "Black Mamba" Bryant and other famous mofo's playing out the game's action IRL?
No?
Then CoD kicked their ever-lovin' asses in the drumbeat department, and any tiny thing they do from now on will have the impact of a full-out marketing blitz.
Hmmmm......
CoD IRL with Kobe Brynat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yzeCsv-qrM
or
BF3 Fault Line Trailer (actual gameplay): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zw8SmsovJc
Yea I would definitely buy a FPS just because a basketball player was in the commercial, with no real gameplay, that aired during a football game. Consumerism at it's best I guess.