It would need to be some kind of jam-proof locking mechanism. Even then, the thief could lock the box and return later to retrieve the parcel from the porch.
That's easy. Assume all of those ewes and lambs will try to throw themselves at your vehicle, calculate how far they can get before you can come to a complete stop, and slow down accordingly. This algorithm also works for children playing by the side of the road.
Did you know that increasing supply is not the only way to solve a supply/demand imbalance?
It's true. eBay has known this for years, and time after time has successfully managed demand to prevent too many bidders from winning the same auction. It really works!
Power companies do the same thing. Mine calls it "demand response." Instead of increasing supply to meet demand, they can decrease demand to meet supply in order to keep the lights on. It takes very little power to keep the grid charged, so energy storage during long dark winters isn't a problem even with today's energy storage technology. The only hurdles are political.
So whenever someone tells you that renewables require a fossil fuel or nuclear backup, you can tell them they are full of sh*t.
I also work on systems that combine custom HW, SW, and FW. What works for us is to design the interfaces between the three first. Then that becomes the requirements, and the three teams can then go off and design their subsystems any way they want as long as they meet the requirements.
in code of any complexity, a stupid typo in an infrequently used if-then-else clause explodes at runtime, possibly weeks or even months later. Sure its simple and easy to fix
Sure, if you ignore the cost of re-testing and redeploying, plus the cost of lost business caused by the bug and so on. The earlier a bug is detected, the cheaper it is to fix, by orders of magnitude.
A rule under such systems might include the requirement that a balance carried over X number of months will result in termination. Such a straightforward rule would be used by about any company, inasmuch as no company will want to be caught in an argument over defining precisely where in the continuum from $0 to $100 owed one should have service cut off.
It's very interesting how you think companies don't want to argue about "where in the continuum from $0 to $100 owed one should have service cut off" but you don't think they mind arguing about how many months a balance carried over would result in termination.
Very interesting indeed.
But you have a valid point about applying the zero-one-infinity rule to collections. The simplest sensible solution is to set the cutoff at the price of a postage stamp. Maybe add in the cost of the envelope, plus processing costs both ways, to avoid losing money collecting on the debt. Google has computers that could figure out the costs, so determining the cutoff should be as simple as a database lookup.
I call them decent because they addressed the absurd case very likely as soon as a human with the necessary prerogatives saw it. What's more, they addressed the case in the right way.
You keep forgetting that they created the absurd case in the first place. Remember, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't encryption prevent the web browser from making a secure connection to a spoofed Equifax server?
If this goes through, I'd like to start funding my retirement with a bunch of climate bets, tax-advantaged or not.
It would need to be some kind of jam-proof locking mechanism. Even then, the thief could lock the box and return later to retrieve the parcel from the porch.
Or a porch bench with an electronic, cryptographically secure lock.
That's easy. Assume all of those ewes and lambs will try to throw themselves at your vehicle, calculate how far they can get before you can come to a complete stop, and slow down accordingly. This algorithm also works for children playing by the side of the road.
Why would you need a price signal to tell you whether to do laundry that day when you can look outside and see if it's sunny or cloudy?
In fact, humans have been doing just that ever since we started washing clothes!
Did you know that increasing supply is not the only way to solve a supply/demand imbalance?
It's true. eBay has known this for years, and time after time has successfully managed demand to prevent too many bidders from winning the same auction. It really works!
Power companies do the same thing. Mine calls it "demand response." Instead of increasing supply to meet demand, they can decrease demand to meet supply in order to keep the lights on. It takes very little power to keep the grid charged, so energy storage during long dark winters isn't a problem even with today's energy storage technology. The only hurdles are political.
So whenever someone tells you that renewables require a fossil fuel or nuclear backup, you can tell them they are full of sh*t.
Yes, except at noon on a sunny day.
The whole Phoenix area very badly needs less asphalt, more shade trees, and taller buildings.
The summary says T-Mobile is looking at crowdsourced data, not billing addresses.
You make it sound like the law got mad for being disrespected.
This is why I like science. It doesn't care if you respect it or not.
Maybe it was only 2.5 days later but they rounded up.
And the ferry ride.
I also work on systems that combine custom HW, SW, and FW. What works for us is to design the interfaces between the three first. Then that becomes the requirements, and the three teams can then go off and design their subsystems any way they want as long as they meet the requirements.
Sure, if you ignore the cost of re-testing and redeploying, plus the cost of lost business caused by the bug and so on. The earlier a bug is detected, the cheaper it is to fix, by orders of magnitude.
You are referring to a Capabus.
But it's so comforting to be told what to think and how to vote. People adopt labels because it relieves them of these burdens.
Protecting "us" from "them" is the same argument the GOP makes for voter ID laws.
My Nexus 6P also can only fast charge on a USB-C charger.
The real news is that the iPhones don't include the cable and fast charger in the box.
There may not yet be an effective way to monitor driver engagement. This doesn't invalidate the NTSB's conclusion.
It's very interesting how you think companies don't want to argue about "where in the continuum from $0 to $100 owed one should have service cut off" but you don't think they mind arguing about how many months a balance carried over would result in termination.
Very interesting indeed.
But you have a valid point about applying the zero-one-infinity rule to collections. The simplest sensible solution is to set the cutoff at the price of a postage stamp. Maybe add in the cost of the envelope, plus processing costs both ways, to avoid losing money collecting on the debt. Google has computers that could figure out the costs, so determining the cutoff should be as simple as a database lookup.
You keep forgetting that they created the absurd case in the first place. Remember, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!
No, I don't think cutting off her internet for a 12 cent bill is decent at all, especially when she had already paid upfront in full.
But how much baseload is truly necessary? In other words, how much electrical demand is perfectly inelastic?
Behind every union is an employer who gives them a reason to exist.
Yes, but discriminatory or not, eliminating monopolies makes the market work better.