The resource won't run out before it becomes so expensive that no one wants to use it. That last barrel of oil will cost so much that no one will buy it. More to the point, it is OKAY that people who want to drive will still do it. That should be the point. The point of environmental regulation shouldn't be to force everyone off the road. The point should be to internalize the evironmental costs to either the consumer or the producer. If we felt the real cost of driving during peak hours, some of us might take steps to drive less or drive at other times. Some of us won't. The ones that won't pay more. Everyone is better off.
1. Congestion charges are the goal for the reduction of traffic while you maximize welfare. You force people into making choices both about WHEN they drive and WHERE they drive. a variable charge based on traffic is much better, from an efficiency standpoint, than a flat charge simple to use the road. a flat charge will keep pople off the road who need to use it, and provide an incentive for those who DO use the road to overuse it.
2. That being said, we don't live in an ideal world. Congestion charges work very well from a welfare standpoint when there are easily accessible alternatives to dirivng on the highway. I can't afford to live in a city, but I have to work there. I can't make a light rail system appear tomorrow, but now I have the economic incentive to ride light rail. We can see the impact of congestion charges at work in a place like london, where public transport is a viable alternative for ANYONE. It is much harder to see it at work in wisconsin.
I read it too. why does every front page story there need to be shunted here? Even if the larger majority of/. readers DON'T read ars, then at least we can refrain from linking >50% of the stories there. Ars has some great post-news cycle analysis of technical issues, and those deserve to be linked here (along w/ their product reviews, which are the best in the industry, IMO), but not every column in response to an industry change. There ought to be a soft cap of like 2 links a month to that site.....sigh.
Get used to it. we are going to reach the point where we will wonder how game makers even made money before the advent of advertisement. Too few of us can look back on cable in the US as a promise of content that we paid for, and therefore didn't need to be sbujected to ads. That didn't last too long. First it was an ad after a movie, no big deal, right? then they would put an add before each hour long show. Now cable is basically broadcast TV you pay for. The same thing is happening in movies. Remember when paying money for a movie ticket meant you didn't have to watch ads for kraft macaroni and cheese?
I won't go into movie sponsorship, because that has been around a long, long time, we are just seeing a naked resurgence of it. We are going to come to the point where games you pay for will have ads in them, along with games you download for free. Next generation FPS's will have ads, and frankly, they are likely to have MORE ads (and more successful ads) than the free version, basically because the people buying the games are not as cheap as the people downloading them for free.:)
Relish games the way they are now, because once the industry model sinks its fangs into those things, they won't ever look the same again. Ever.
I see the aviation industry as akin to the aerospace contractors working with NASA in the 1980's. Trained to have integrity, but pressured by deadlines in order to reduce safety margins. Just because people are under enormous pressure doesn't indicate moral failure.
Right. I also posted a link later that showed that I was overestimating the seperation required between critical systems and non-critical systems and among critical systems. That being said, I don't feel that most of the decisions to skimp on safety measures are taken by engineers, they are taken by management over the protests of engineers. In my experience, engineers tend to overdo it.:)
This[PDF] seems to be a document developed in order to address software/hardware partition requirements AMONG flight critical components. It is interesting to see how much is able to be shared, even on a single processor.
I am not an avionics engineer, but I worked with electrical and electronic systems on nuclear power plants, and we had a pretty strict segregation between different types of systems--and with 0 connection between a critical system (power sensing, for example) and a non-critical system (Some water level management). That's not even COUNTING peripheral systems (computers on the local netowrk for email/ppt/xls).
My thought is that some asshole at boeing decided to save some money on cable runs and ginned up an explanation of how software segregation would serve as an adequate barrier between flight critical systems and passenger systems. They never learn.
Yeah. I gathered that. I don't use either vista or XP anymore. what Iw as saying was that while the issue is fodder for some good comedy, this wasn't it. L2read.
Funny, and a nice jab at "upgrading" windows, but really, this could have been much better done by a better writer. How many times did he end up writing "snappy and responsive" to describe XP versus Vista?
also, it really could have benefited from a singular tone. Satire is much better when the voice of the piece doesn't change. Take a page from the onion and just treat this as though it were a review of a "new" OS from microsoft.
All in all, not 1/10 as good as it could have been.
Not by itself it doesn't. It could just as easily speak to the eurocentrism of the ISO. We certainly can treat Adobe as as much of a heavyweight in the document world as any company that is 100 times its size outside the document world.
I know this. I just think it is a little humorous to poke fun at a standard for brewing tea. I also realize that standardization is a huge part of trade, contracts and (interestingly) the restrictions on trade.
this is awesome. If I had mod points I'd use them to mod you up, even though I would be voiding my own post. "The first hundred pages of my shit list are devoted solely to Acrobat" LOL
This will probably help. the filenames are all for windows, but the idea is the same. Just go to "Show package contents" int he contextual menu to get to the folders he is talking about. Makes acrobat run much faster. I also prefer some of the features of acrobat.
Another standard from our friends the ISO. I'm glad the.pdf is now a documented standard, but this doesn't really mean TOO much in the document world. It might convince a few pointy-haired bosses that.pdf is MUCH better than develpoing some internal document handling protocol due to the imposing and convincing sound the standard makes when spoken, but I know that most of the ISO standardization process is in name only.
Let's not get started about process and quality management and the yellow sticky of approval that is ISO-9000.
How long until the League of Evil (or some such nonsense) invents a dastardly plan to mess with satellite location calibration by digging giant holes in the salt flats?
EVERYONE has different preferences for shipping times. For some stuff, I want it right away, or for a specific gift, I might want it to arrive on or before a date certain. For other things (like used books for 10 dollars, just as an example), I could care less if it is a few days late.
Did you not read the major takeaway from that comment, which is that there are limited shipping resources and we can only devote so many at any given time? Even in the long run, it doesn't make sense to allocate infinite shipping resources.
What we are saying is this: If you can't get EVERYONE's package on time, doesn't it make sense to figure out who will actually care and matter in the long run and get their on time. If you had to choose which on to prioritize, which one would you get on time?
And to your direct question, yes. It pays to be the squeaky wheel.
ok, so don't shop there. I can't fix you if you're bent out of shape about some order you didn't get. I bet you AMAZON gives a shit about net faster service and the rest of amazon's customers do as well.
No, it's not. I didn't work on it, but I can damn well bet that the level of sophisitcation and the novelty of analysis and control are enough for it to be distinct from older uses.
Sort of like making a computer simulation of a wind tunnel. Yeah, wind tunnels exist and the ideas and theories are in the public domain, but the actual computer simulation allowing a CAD input and providing a Cd and other info is very novel.
Slashdot Mirror
The resource won't run out before it becomes so expensive that no one wants to use it. That last barrel of oil will cost so much that no one will buy it. More to the point, it is OKAY that people who want to drive will still do it. That should be the point. The point of environmental regulation shouldn't be to force everyone off the road. The point should be to internalize the evironmental costs to either the consumer or the producer. If we felt the real cost of driving during peak hours, some of us might take steps to drive less or drive at other times. Some of us won't. The ones that won't pay more. Everyone is better off.
1. Congestion charges are the goal for the reduction of traffic while you maximize welfare. You force people into making choices both about WHEN they drive and WHERE they drive. a variable charge based on traffic is much better, from an efficiency standpoint, than a flat charge simple to use the road. a flat charge will keep pople off the road who need to use it, and provide an incentive for those who DO use the road to overuse it.
2. That being said, we don't live in an ideal world. Congestion charges work very well from a welfare standpoint when there are easily accessible alternatives to dirivng on the highway. I can't afford to live in a city, but I have to work there. I can't make a light rail system appear tomorrow, but now I have the economic incentive to ride light rail. We can see the impact of congestion charges at work in a place like london, where public transport is a viable alternative for ANYONE. It is much harder to see it at work in wisconsin.
How is this offtopic? ARS provided analysis, we can read it on their front page as easily as we can read it here. It's a meta-commentary.
I read it too. why does every front page story there need to be shunted here? Even if the larger majority of /. readers DON'T read ars, then at least we can refrain from linking >50% of the stories there. Ars has some great post-news cycle analysis of technical issues, and those deserve to be linked here (along w/ their product reviews, which are the best in the industry, IMO), but not every column in response to an industry change. There ought to be a soft cap of like 2 links a month to that site.....sigh.
Get used to it. we are going to reach the point where we will wonder how game makers even made money before the advent of advertisement. Too few of us can look back on cable in the US as a promise of content that we paid for, and therefore didn't need to be sbujected to ads. That didn't last too long. First it was an ad after a movie, no big deal, right? then they would put an add before each hour long show. Now cable is basically broadcast TV you pay for. The same thing is happening in movies. Remember when paying money for a movie ticket meant you didn't have to watch ads for kraft macaroni and cheese?
:)
I won't go into movie sponsorship, because that has been around a long, long time, we are just seeing a naked resurgence of it. We are going to come to the point where games you pay for will have ads in them, along with games you download for free. Next generation FPS's will have ads, and frankly, they are likely to have MORE ads (and more successful ads) than the free version, basically because the people buying the games are not as cheap as the people downloading them for free.
Relish games the way they are now, because once the industry model sinks its fangs into those things, they won't ever look the same again. Ever.
I see the aviation industry as akin to the aerospace contractors working with NASA in the 1980's. Trained to have integrity, but pressured by deadlines in order to reduce safety margins. Just because people are under enormous pressure doesn't indicate moral failure.
Right. I also posted a link later that showed that I was overestimating the seperation required between critical systems and non-critical systems and among critical systems. That being said, I don't feel that most of the decisions to skimp on safety measures are taken by engineers, they are taken by management over the protests of engineers. In my experience, engineers tend to overdo it. :)
You're the boss, boss. I really know nothing about the classification systems/nomenclature for avionics.
This[PDF] seems to be a document developed in order to address software/hardware partition requirements AMONG flight critical components. It is interesting to see how much is able to be shared, even on a single processor.
:)
[[WARNING!!! PDF!!]]
I am not an avionics engineer, but I worked with electrical and electronic systems on nuclear power plants, and we had a pretty strict segregation between different types of systems--and with 0 connection between a critical system (power sensing, for example) and a non-critical system (Some water level management). That's not even COUNTING peripheral systems (computers on the local netowrk for email/ppt/xls).
My thought is that some asshole at boeing decided to save some money on cable runs and ginned up an explanation of how software segregation would serve as an adequate barrier between flight critical systems and passenger systems. They never learn.
Fine then, sarcasm is much better expressed as satire unless you're Norm Macdonald.
Yeah. I gathered that. I don't use either vista or XP anymore. what Iw as saying was that while the issue is fodder for some good comedy, this wasn't it. L2read.
Funny, and a nice jab at "upgrading" windows, but really, this could have been much better done by a better writer. How many times did he end up writing "snappy and responsive" to describe XP versus Vista?
also, it really could have benefited from a singular tone. Satire is much better when the voice of the piece doesn't change. Take a page from the onion and just treat this as though it were a review of a "new" OS from microsoft.
All in all, not 1/10 as good as it could have been.
Ars has a good writeup of the article in nature, for those who want to read more, but don't want to bother w/ the journal article.
Not by itself it doesn't. It could just as easily speak to the eurocentrism of the ISO. We certainly can treat Adobe as as much of a heavyweight in the document world as any company that is 100 times its size outside the document world.
I know this. I just think it is a little humorous to poke fun at a standard for brewing tea. I also realize that standardization is a huge part of trade, contracts and (interestingly) the restrictions on trade.
Right. but that still is a judgement on adobe for making a good open standard. NOT on the legitimacy bestowed by the ISO.
this is awesome. If I had mod points I'd use them to mod you up, even though I would be voiding my own post. "The first hundred pages of my shit list are devoted solely to Acrobat" LOL
This will probably help. the filenames are all for windows, but the idea is the same. Just go to "Show package contents" int he contextual menu to get to the folders he is talking about. Makes acrobat run much faster. I also prefer some of the features of acrobat.
Another standard from our friends the ISO. I'm glad the .pdf is now a documented standard, but this doesn't really mean TOO much in the document world. It might convince a few pointy-haired bosses that .pdf is MUCH better than develpoing some internal document handling protocol due to the imposing and convincing sound the standard makes when spoken, but I know that most of the ISO standardization process is in name only.
Let's not get started about process and quality management and the yellow sticky of approval that is ISO-9000.
How long until the League of Evil (or some such nonsense) invents a dastardly plan to mess with satellite location calibration by digging giant holes in the salt flats?
:)
Hey. It's more credible than Goldeneye.
I still can't fix the fact that you got burned by Amazon customer support. Your problem does not make this system a bad idea, however.
Sigh.
EVERYONE has different preferences for shipping times. For some stuff, I want it right away, or for a specific gift, I might want it to arrive on or before a date certain. For other things (like used books for 10 dollars, just as an example), I could care less if it is a few days late.
Did you not read the major takeaway from that comment, which is that there are limited shipping resources and we can only devote so many at any given time? Even in the long run, it doesn't make sense to allocate infinite shipping resources.
What we are saying is this: If you can't get EVERYONE's package on time, doesn't it make sense to figure out who will actually care and matter in the long run and get their on time. If you had to choose which on to prioritize, which one would you get on time?
And to your direct question, yes. It pays to be the squeaky wheel.
ok, so don't shop there. I can't fix you if you're bent out of shape about some order you didn't get. I bet you AMAZON gives a shit about net faster service and the rest of amazon's customers do as well.
No, it's not. I didn't work on it, but I can damn well bet that the level of sophisitcation and the novelty of analysis and control are enough for it to be distinct from older uses.
Sort of like making a computer simulation of a wind tunnel. Yeah, wind tunnels exist and the ideas and theories are in the public domain, but the actual computer simulation allowing a CAD input and providing a Cd and other info is very novel.