(3) is the deal breaker (although see the next post). When I last checked, if you want to receive money on paypal you had to link it to a bank account. I had a friend and a friend of a friend have their bank accounts emptied out this way. Really fun experience. They got nothing back.
That would be slick if we could do that. One problem is that in the US we have a semi-broken system called ACH which allows someone to take money from our account if they know our bank number. This is regularly used by companies legitimately but you can't control who can do it, so others can just take your money. In many instances, your bank can't even tell you where they money went.
Thanks for the tip. Yo don't have to be a member to bank with them.
Can you also (a) link a savings account with good interest and have 0 cost transfers and (b) pay bills online (including to individuals, not just the utilities et cetera)?
The interest is better at my bank than at the credit unions I have access to. Plus I've never paid a fee to my bank but the credit union has fees that I would have to pay. Next question.
Given this view there is no reason to prioritize or budget really. Every program has benefits, the points is you have to weight those against the costs. If you can't agree that this is important you will make (very) bad decisions.
I once read, "Space travel is quite different. There are a million and one things which we don't have good answers for, yet. No airplanes go nearly fast enough for liftoff, so development of hypersonic cramjets seems the next step. Conventional shielding from radiation is impractical due to size and weight, so an electromagnetic forcefield (ala Star Trek) seems a practical necessity for even the shortest interplanetary trip."
From this I learned (1) airplanes can not lift off (we will need cramjets before they can) and , (2) you think that "Star Trek" forcefields are a necessary R&D area. Now you say this is totally understood.
Please enumerate the direct benefits of going to the moon? I'm not talking about the indirect benefits, which I don't deny. The point is the other option is not do nothing but take up an ambitious project that actual has value itself.
At the time of Apollo we didn't have mobile computers in any real sense and they had to develop that technology. The overflows were huge--NASA was cutting edge. Today NASA isn't so much cutting edge. Some of the overflows that were defense related are not worth as much now; the ability to launch and target an ICBM is much less valuable in today's world.
Likely research for space travel is radiation shielding an radiation hardened computer equipment. Similar to the launch technology, these are only useful for other space related exploits.
Lets contrast this with pouring money into, say, automating freeways. This could yield substantially lower energy costs for freeway travel (much less braking, less interest in high horsepower cars). But it would also give us information about making robots that interact with each other and making systems that work that way very safe. The overflows to robotics and AI would be huge and applicable to all sorts of problems, not just launching rockets.
Literally restating your points: the positives of space exploration are that it begets space exploration and excitement about space exploration. This simply begs the question. If even an advocate for space exploration can't clearly state why it is useful for any reason other than prolonging itself, it is no wonder it is being cut.
Okay, trip to mars estimated cost (from NASA) is $400 billion. Even for the USG, that is a huge project. The benefit on the other hand is... what exactly? Especially when you consider that there are actual problems to solve here on Earth.
BTW, Not only was I a physicist, I worked on a contract related to NASA's (now dead) super sonic transport. The idea of a supersonic train was is that it would be an almost impossible project, not that it would be an easy project--those are dime a dozen.
You do realize this argument is really stupid. The basic argument goes that doing something difficult and useless is really helpful because you solve all these engineering problems along the way that are helpful for other areas. If true, then doing something useful and difficult would be much more helpful. Why not develop super efficient engines for various modes of transportation? Why not build great high speed rail that could connect cities at super sonic speeds? Doesn't sound possible? Not really, but neither did putting a man on the moon. Difference is, this one would be something when we were done.
Just like it is not now time to launch a rocket to a nearby star, now is not the time for maned space travel. The cost is ridiculous, and the value of Hubble has been exponentially larger. I'd be all for launching larger, more, or different versions of Hubble because the amount of science that has been done with the telescope is amazing. But manned space travel?
Did it ever occur to you that it might be valid for the teacher to try to teach you two things at once: (1) how to be a student of their subject, (2) their subject?
I agree totally that people should be able to do what they want as far as messing up a college class. I also agree that a faculty member can make the requirements they want for their class. If they want only such and such behavior in their class, then they can't demand it. Don't want to be so bound? don't go to class. Required to attend every lecture? Don't take the class. Why do people sleep in class? why not sleep in your bed, you will be happier, the professor will be happier, the students around you will be happier. This is what a syllabus is for: you and the professor agree to the rules at the top of the class and then they get to enforce them. At the end, you get an entry on your transcript saying you signed up for the class and how well you did.
When you quote your wpm you are quoting your speed at copying text printed on a page. I can type at about 50 if I think of what I am typing as words and 80 if I don't (just tested it), so I can probably only think around 50 wpm, adding in creating the text while they type, I think 30 wpm is reasonable. BTW, I thought I typed at 30 wpm, and when I was typing, it sounded very slow to me (with many pauses, and backspaces to correct mistakes), so you might want to check what 60 wpm sounds like again.
Including all costs (including incorrectly paid claims) medicare dominates efficiency in health care in the US. This is in line with the rest of the worlds experience: socialized medicine just costs less. France pays about 1/2 what we do per person and the main complaint about their medical care is that patients get everything they want. From a patients perspective, that doesn't sound so bad. You have to realize, in socialized medicine the doctor approves most things and gets paid by typical costs, not what is actually done, so there isn't paying doctors for doing more and there isn't layers and layers of lawyers, forms, and bureaucrats that also loose lots of efficiency.
Slashdot Mirror
(3) is the deal breaker (although see the next post). When I last checked, if you want to receive money on paypal you had to link it to a bank account. I had a friend and a friend of a friend have their bank accounts emptied out this way. Really fun experience. They got nothing back.
That would be slick if we could do that. One problem is that in the US we have a semi-broken system called ACH which allows someone to take money from our account if they know our bank number. This is regularly used by companies legitimately but you can't control who can do it, so others can just take your money. In many instances, your bank can't even tell you where they money went.
Thanks for the tip. Yo don't have to be a member to bank with them.
Can you also (a) link a savings account with good interest and have 0 cost transfers and (b) pay bills online (including to individuals, not just the utilities et cetera)?
Uh, he said, "Many in the US have no bank account at all." nothing about our stupid system where you must protect your bank account number.
How do you: (1) pay rent if you have a land lord with only a few properties? (2) buy a car? (3) sell something over the internet?
The interest is better at my bank than at the credit unions I have access to. Plus I've never paid a fee to my bank but the credit union has fees that I would have to pay. Next question.
Given this view there is no reason to prioritize or budget really. Every program has benefits, the points is you have to weight those against the costs. If you can't agree that this is important you will make (very) bad decisions.
I once read, "Space travel is quite different. There are a million and one things which we don't have good answers for, yet. No airplanes go nearly fast enough for liftoff, so development of hypersonic cramjets seems the next step. Conventional shielding from radiation is impractical due to size and weight, so an electromagnetic forcefield (ala Star Trek) seems a practical necessity for even the shortest interplanetary trip."
From this I learned (1) airplanes can not lift off (we will need cramjets before they can) and , (2) you think that "Star Trek" forcefields are a necessary R&D area. Now you say this is totally understood.
How often do you use this civilization line?
I don't understand, you think we don't have limited resources to spend?
Please enumerate the direct benefits of going to the moon? I'm not talking about the indirect benefits, which I don't deny. The point is the other option is not do nothing but take up an ambitious project that actual has value itself.
At the time of Apollo we didn't have mobile computers in any real sense and they had to develop that technology. The overflows were huge--NASA was cutting edge. Today NASA isn't so much cutting edge. Some of the overflows that were defense related are not worth as much now; the ability to launch and target an ICBM is much less valuable in today's world.
Likely research for space travel is radiation shielding an radiation hardened computer equipment. Similar to the launch technology, these are only useful for other space related exploits.
Lets contrast this with pouring money into, say, automating freeways. This could yield substantially lower energy costs for freeway travel (much less braking, less interest in high horsepower cars). But it would also give us information about making robots that interact with each other and making systems that work that way very safe. The overflows to robotics and AI would be huge and applicable to all sorts of problems, not just launching rockets.
I never said I had a problem with people going to service satellites. My problem is wasting money on space travel for space travel's sake.
Literally restating your points: the positives of space exploration are that it begets space exploration and excitement about space exploration. This simply begs the question. If even an advocate for space exploration can't clearly state why it is useful for any reason other than prolonging itself, it is no wonder it is being cut.
You make a good point: the technologies needed for the next step are even less applicable here on Earth that the Apollo technologies were.
Okay, trip to mars estimated cost (from NASA) is $400 billion. Even for the USG, that is a huge project. The benefit on the other hand is... what exactly? Especially when you consider that there are actual problems to solve here on Earth.
I don't get it. Is your point that NASA could be a bottomless pit for money with no useful products into the distant future? Why would we want that?
BTW, Not only was I a physicist, I worked on a contract related to NASA's (now dead) super sonic transport. The idea of a supersonic train was is that it would be an almost impossible project, not that it would be an easy project--those are dime a dozen.
You do realize this argument is really stupid. The basic argument goes that doing something difficult and useless is really helpful because you solve all these engineering problems along the way that are helpful for other areas. If true, then doing something useful and difficult would be much more helpful. Why not develop super efficient engines for various modes of transportation? Why not build great high speed rail that could connect cities at super sonic speeds? Doesn't sound possible? Not really, but neither did putting a man on the moon. Difference is, this one would be something when we were done.
Just like it is not now time to launch a rocket to a nearby star, now is not the time for maned space travel. The cost is ridiculous, and the value of Hubble has been exponentially larger. I'd be all for launching larger, more, or different versions of Hubble because the amount of science that has been done with the telescope is amazing. But manned space travel?
Yeah, but if you count by Rmax share (instead of # of supercomputers share), Intel only has 50%.
Did it ever occur to you that it might be valid for the teacher to try to teach you two things at once: (1) how to be a student of their subject, (2) their subject?
I agree totally that people should be able to do what they want as far as messing up a college class. I also agree that a faculty member can make the requirements they want for their class. If they want only such and such behavior in their class, then they can't demand it. Don't want to be so bound? don't go to class. Required to attend every lecture? Don't take the class. Why do people sleep in class? why not sleep in your bed, you will be happier, the professor will be happier, the students around you will be happier. This is what a syllabus is for: you and the professor agree to the rules at the top of the class and then they get to enforce them. At the end, you get an entry on your transcript saying you signed up for the class and how well you did.
When you quote your wpm you are quoting your speed at copying text printed on a page. I can type at about 50 if I think of what I am typing as words and 80 if I don't (just tested it), so I can probably only think around 50 wpm, adding in creating the text while they type, I think 30 wpm is reasonable. BTW, I thought I typed at 30 wpm, and when I was typing, it sounded very slow to me (with many pauses, and backspaces to correct mistakes), so you might want to check what 60 wpm sounds like again.
Including all costs (including incorrectly paid claims) medicare dominates efficiency in health care in the US. This is in line with the rest of the worlds experience: socialized medicine just costs less. France pays about 1/2 what we do per person and the main complaint about their medical care is that patients get everything they want. From a patients perspective, that doesn't sound so bad. You have to realize, in socialized medicine the doctor approves most things and gets paid by typical costs, not what is actually done, so there isn't paying doctors for doing more and there isn't layers and layers of lawyers, forms, and bureaucrats that also loose lots of efficiency.