Scalpers exist wherever there's a shortage. Shortages exist wherever the price of something is held below what the market will bear. So it seems the best way to eliminate scalpers is to raise the price.
They solved the problem with wide newspapers by organizing text into columns. Now we have a similar problem with wide screens.
What we need in HTML is proper support for columns that set their height to the browser window height. Then instead of scrolling down, the reader would scroll to the right, just as if they were reading a newspaper or a book.
If the purpose of flying was to reduce rush hour traffic, you might have a point.
Because the only purpose of high speed rail is to reduce rush hour traffic? False. High speed rail is useful not just for commuting, but also for traveling, up to about 400-500 miles, which competes with airline shuttle service.
In Germany if you get caught driving with a BAC above a certain level, your license is forfeit and you don't get it back until you can prove, through a battery of psychological and other tests, that you no longer have a drinking problem.
Replace "drinking" with "texting," and I think we have a solution.
In most states that law is already in effect. The problem is that it's seldom enforced.
In Nevada (the state from TFA), the law is: "If any driver drives a motor vehicle at a speed so slow as to impede the forward movement of traffic proceeding immediately behind the driver, the driver shall...drive in the extreme right-hand lane". NRS 484B.627
But it arguably isn't impeding if other cars are able to get around by passing on the right. That makes it difficult to enforce this law. But if it were illegal to pass on the right, then cars couldn't get around a vehicle in the left lane, and that would give the law some teeth.
There is no statistical data that proves that an increase in speed increases accidents. Citation: Germany's Autobahn
So you would be in favor of making it illegal to pass on the right, just like on the Autobahn, in order to make highways safe at high speeds?
That's not such a bad idea. Right now it's permissible to drive slowly in the left lane because traffic can still get around you. If it were illegal to pass on the right, only then could you be impeding traffic. So "illegal to pass on the right" would keep slow drivers out of the fast lanes.
No, Socialism is correct. An example is freeways in the USA, which are owned and maintained by the government.
Fascism also applies, where fascism is defined as private ownership but government control of the means of production. For example, municipal requirements that tell businesses how much of their property must be set aside for parking.
We are all socialists and fascists whenever it benefits us.
If it were left up to the free market, they'd welch out on the boonies and stay in the cities where it's profitable.
Then people who live out in the boonies would just pick up their mail at the nearest post office. That doesn't sound unreasonable. Consider it part of the cost of living far away from civilization.
Because of diffraction, you will never be able to under certain pixel size.
According to the Rayleigh diffraction limit, diffraction is only an issue at small apertures. Using the lp/mm=1600/N rule, where N is the f-stop, a lens at f/8 (where optical aberration is usually not an issue) can resolve 200 lp/mm, which is 400 pixels per mm. On a 35mm sensor (36x24mm), this equates to 138MP. But a pinhole camera at f/200 achieves only 16 pixels per mm, which is 221,184 pixels on 35mm.
For the APS-H (27.9mm × 18.6mm), 13,280×9,184 pixel sensor mentioned in TFA, the smallest aperture that can be used before diffraction becomes a concern will be f/6.7.
I shoot shoot with APS-H sensors on the Canon 1D and many of the lenses that Canon, Nikon and Sigma among others make are not nearly sharp enough to deal with many more pixels than are on say... the Canon 1Ds.
If you always shoot wide open, I can see why you would say that. But if I stop down, even the kit lens on my 10MP Canon XTi outresolves the sensor.
A big rig causes 9,600 times as much road wear as a car, but doesn't pay 9,600 times as much in taxes. So a simple solution is to make them pay the full cost, based on the weight of the vehicle and the number of axles.
Faced with paying the full cost of transporting goods, the shipping companies will use rail more often, and that will reduce traffic congestion and save us money on repairing the roads.
...and so there's an easy solution. When wants exceed supply, this is a sign that the price is too low. The market solution is to raise the price until supply and demand equalize.
Sadly, we haven't learned this in America. We prefer to maintain the illusion that freeways are free, even though the market solution would be cheaper in the end.
Germany is 1/2 the size of Texas: 357,022 sq. km. vs. 678,054 sq. km., into which they've jammed a little over a quarter of the population of the U.S. 82,282,988 vs. 310,232,863. What are you smoking that makes you believe the same transportation economics will apply in the U.S. as in Europe?
Spain's population density is about the same as California, and they already have a successful high speed rail network.
Keep in mind that everything you eat, wear and touch is delivered in one way or another on transportation of some kind, so literally everything would become more expensive.
Yes, but road/gasoline subsidies distort the market for transportation, preventing the market from finding the most cost effective way to move things around. As a result, we all pay more in the end. Removing the subsidies will raise prices at the store a little, but not by as much as it will reduce the amount of money spent on the subsidies.
Slashdot Mirror
Scalpers exist wherever there's a shortage. Shortages exist wherever the price of something is held below what the market will bear. So it seems the best way to eliminate scalpers is to raise the price.
Perhaps an auction would be called for here.
They solved the problem with wide newspapers by organizing text into columns. Now we have a similar problem with wide screens.
What we need in HTML is proper support for columns that set their height to the browser window height. Then instead of scrolling down, the reader would scroll to the right, just as if they were reading a newspaper or a book.
Because the only purpose of high speed rail is to reduce rush hour traffic? False. High speed rail is useful not just for commuting, but also for traveling, up to about 400-500 miles, which competes with airline shuttle service.
And taking an airplane between cities leaves you stranded at the airport, right?
In Germany if you get caught driving with a BAC above a certain level, your license is forfeit and you don't get it back until you can prove, through a battery of psychological and other tests, that you no longer have a drinking problem.
Replace "drinking" with "texting," and I think we have a solution.
Actually, the visual on/off indicator is for the safety of our customers.
Unfortunately, lights tend to be close to the ceiling, and heat rises, so lights usually don't do a very good job keeping things warm.
In Nevada (the state from TFA), the law is: "If any driver drives a motor vehicle at a speed so slow as to impede the forward movement of traffic proceeding immediately behind the driver, the driver shall...drive in the extreme right-hand lane". NRS 484B.627
But it arguably isn't impeding if other cars are able to get around by passing on the right. That makes it difficult to enforce this law. But if it were illegal to pass on the right, then cars couldn't get around a vehicle in the left lane, and that would give the law some teeth.
So you would be in favor of making it illegal to pass on the right, just like on the Autobahn, in order to make highways safe at high speeds?
That's not such a bad idea. Right now it's permissible to drive slowly in the left lane because traffic can still get around you. If it were illegal to pass on the right, only then could you be impeding traffic. So "illegal to pass on the right" would keep slow drivers out of the fast lanes.
Unless, of course, the malware reads your theme configuration file.
The CD-ROM version is available for $215. They really ought to make it available for e-book readers.
They could pick up their mail when they go into town to buy groceries or other supplies.
No, Socialism is correct. An example is freeways in the USA, which are owned and maintained by the government.
Fascism also applies, where fascism is defined as private ownership but government control of the means of production. For example, municipal requirements that tell businesses how much of their property must be set aside for parking.
We are all socialists and fascists whenever it benefits us.
Then people who live out in the boonies would just pick up their mail at the nearest post office. That doesn't sound unreasonable. Consider it part of the cost of living far away from civilization.
According to the Rayleigh diffraction limit, diffraction is only an issue at small apertures. Using the lp/mm=1600/N rule, where N is the f-stop, a lens at f/8 (where optical aberration is usually not an issue) can resolve 200 lp/mm, which is 400 pixels per mm. On a 35mm sensor (36x24mm), this equates to 138MP. But a pinhole camera at f/200 achieves only 16 pixels per mm, which is 221,184 pixels on 35mm.
For the APS-H (27.9mm × 18.6mm), 13,280×9,184 pixel sensor mentioned in TFA, the smallest aperture that can be used before diffraction becomes a concern will be f/6.7.
With or without optical image stabilization?
If you always shoot wide open, I can see why you would say that. But if I stop down, even the kit lens on my 10MP Canon XTi outresolves the sensor.
That's quite the exothermic reaction!
I think I know where you can get that kind of energy!
A big rig causes 9,600 times as much road wear as a car, but doesn't pay 9,600 times as much in taxes. So a simple solution is to make them pay the full cost, based on the weight of the vehicle and the number of axles.
Faced with paying the full cost of transporting goods, the shipping companies will use rail more often, and that will reduce traffic congestion and save us money on repairing the roads.
...and so there's an easy solution. When wants exceed supply, this is a sign that the price is too low. The market solution is to raise the price until supply and demand equalize.
Sadly, we haven't learned this in America. We prefer to maintain the illusion that freeways are free, even though the market solution would be cheaper in the end.
And that's why airports will never work, right?
Spain's population density is about the same as California, and they already have a successful high speed rail network.
Absolutely false. Even if gas tax funds "were fully devoted to highways, total user fee revenue accounted for only 65 percent of all funds set aside for highways in 2007."
The airlines don't care about their short haul shuttle services. They make more money on the longer flights. Even JetBlue doesn't "think we need hundreds of departures every day from the Bay Area to Los Angeles".
Yes, but road/gasoline subsidies distort the market for transportation, preventing the market from finding the most cost effective way to move things around. As a result, we all pay more in the end. Removing the subsidies will raise prices at the store a little, but not by as much as it will reduce the amount of money spent on the subsidies.